Sharp v Ministry of Defence

In a convoy collision, an emergency stop followed by a rear-end collision does not, without more, establish negligence or liability. A driver may reasonably take emergency action to avoid an immediate danger, even though it creates a risk to following traffic. The duty owed to following drivers forms part of the wider duty owed to other road users. The concertina effect in a convoy may make successive emergency stops consistent with careful as well as negligent driving. Evidence must provide a sufficient basis for finding that the earlier driver’s conduct was negligent and causative. A mere but-for connection is insufficient. Negligence fact-finding is a judgment informed by law, not a discretion immune from appellate review.

The appellant, a Royal Engineers driver, was injured when his convoy vehicle collided with the protruding load of the vehicle ahead after the convoy halted on a motorway. He sued the Ministry of Defence in negligence and for breach of statutory duty. The High Court, in Sharp v Ministry of Defence [2007] EWHC 224 (QB), rejected allegations concerning the brakes, load and training, but found that drivers of two preceding vehicles had driven too closely. It nevertheless held that the appellant’s negligence was the sole effective cause and dismissed the claim. The appeal concerned whether the preceding drivers’ emergency stops, viewed against the convoy’s concertina effect, provided a sufficient basis for finding them negligent and causatively responsible.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the claim, but substituted its reasoning for that of the High Court.

1. Appellate review. Fact-finding is a matter of judgment, not a discretionary choice between legally permissible courses. Findings concerning negligence are heavily informed by law and are not immune from appellate scrutiny [15].
2. Emergency stops. More is required before a driver who makes an emergency stop for good reason can be held liable to a following driver who collides with the rear of the vehicle. The duty owed to following traffic forms part of the wider duty owed to all road users. A driver may have to take emergency action to avoid an immediate danger, even though that action creates a risk of collision; the occurrence of an accident does not itself establish liability [22].
3. Convoy collisions. The concertina effect meant that the emergency stops by V5 and V6 were as consistent with careful driving as with negligent driving. The evidence therefore provided no sufficient basis for finding the preceding drivers negligent. The fact that the collision would not have occurred without their abrupt stops established only a but-for connection, which was insufficient to establish legal causation or liability [19]–[23].
4. Disposition. The collision was not shown to have been anyone else’s fault. The court therefore did not need to determine what blame, if any, attached to the appellant. The appeal was dismissed [24]–[25].

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In Sharp v Ministry of Defence [2007] EWCA Civ 1223, the appeal was dismissed. The High Court’s result was upheld on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that the preceding drivers were negligent.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Keith J, in Sharp v Ministry of Defence [2007] EWHC 224 (QB), dismissed the claim after finding the appellant solely responsible for the collision.