Farley v Buckley

A driver turning right from a minor road onto a major road must exercise great care, but negligence remains a fact-sensitive question of reasonable foreseeability. There is no universal requirement to stop and use a nose-poking manoeuvre before passing an obstructing vehicle. A driver need allow for an overtaking motorcycle proceeding with appropriate care, but need not anticipate a motorcycle being ridden recklessly at a speed which makes stopping impossible. Where the turning driver proceeds slowly and cautiously, continuous movement may be reasonable. The rider’s conduct may constitute the sole cause of the collision.

The claimant was riding a motor scooter along a major urban road while overtaking a slow-moving refuse wagon. The respondent was turning right from a minor road across the claimant’s carriageway. The collision occurred when the respondent’s car had advanced beyond the refuse wagon.

Swift J found that the claimant had been entirely negligent. She rejected the argument that the respondent should have stopped after cautiously protruding beyond the refuse wagon, a manoeuvre described as nose-poking. The appeal challenged that conclusion, principally on the basis that the respondent’s continuous movement was negligent and that liability should have been apportioned.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Maurice Kay LJ gave the judgment, with Wall LJ and Pill LJ agreeing. The claimant was properly held to bear full responsibility for the collision.
2. A driver turning right from a minor road must exercise great care. Whether the driver is negligent depends on the particular circumstances and on the risks which were reasonably foreseeable. The judgment did not impose a general rule requiring a driver to stop and nose-poke beyond an obstructing vehicle.
3. The respondent could reasonably have anticipated a motorcycle overtaking the refuse wagon at modest speed and with appropriate care. He was not required to anticipate the claimant overtaking at about 30 miles per hour, with his view blocked, close to the centre line, and without the ability to stop within a very short distance. The claimant’s conduct was properly characterised as reckless and showed a serious want of care.
4. The difference between continuous movement and nose-poking was slight on the facts. The respondent had waited for gaps in traffic, emerged slowly and cautiously, and was initially protected by the refuse wagon. Nose-poking could itself provoke an overtaking motorcyclist into a hazardous swerve. The trial judge was therefore entitled to find no negligence by the respondent.
5. The appellate court treated the estimate that the respondent was travelling at 5–8 miles per hour as a relatively soft finding. The firmer overall finding was that he was proceeding slowly and cautiously. This decision was expressly confined to the unique facts and was not authority that emerging at that speed, or failing to nose-poke, is generally acceptable.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2007] EWCA Civ 403: appeal dismissed. The court upheld the finding that the claimant was solely responsible for the collision.
• Manchester District Registry, Swift J: found the claimant entirely negligent and rejected the submission that the respondent should have stopped and nose-poked beyond the refuse wagon.