Sharp v Ministry of Defence

A claimant must maintain a safe distance from the vehicle ahead, particularly in a convoy of large vehicles, so as to allow for delayed reactions, abrupt braking and the concertina effect. Compliance with a general two-second rule does not necessarily establish a safe distance in convoy driving. An employer may be liable for defective equipment only where the defect caused or materially contributed to the injury. The court must assess causation by comparing the actual consequences with the probable consequences if the equipment had operated properly. Where the evidence shows that the injury would have occurred despite proper functioning, the breach is not causative. A claimant’s negligence may be the sole effective cause even where other drivers also acted negligently.

The claimant, a young Army driver, was seriously injured when his military vehicle collided with a load protruding from the vehicle ahead during a convoy travelling through roadworks in Germany. The passenger in his vehicle was killed. The claimant alleged that the Ministry of Defence was liable for inadequate convoy spacing, insufficient training, briefing and supervision, and a defective braking system.

The Ministry admitted breach of Provision and Use of Equipment Regulations 1998 in failing to maintain the vehicle’s braking system efficiently. Liability was tried separately from quantum. The central issues were whether the Ministry or other convoy drivers had caused the accident, whether the claimant had been negligent, and whether the defective brakes had caused or contributed to his injuries.

1. Convoy spacing. Drivers must maintain a safe distance from the vehicle ahead. The distance must allow for reaction time, emergency braking and the progressive bunching of vehicles in a convoy. The two-second rule is a useful rule of thumb, but it is not invariably sufficient for large-vehicle convoy driving.
2. Training, briefing and supervision. The claimant’s training adequately addressed safe convoy distances. The convoy briefing, which included the two-second rule and specified distances depending on speed, was sufficient. The allegation of inadequate supervision was also not established. The Ministry therefore did not breach regulation 9 of the Provision and Use of Equipment Regulations 1998.
3. Defective brakes and causation. The Ministry admitted breach of regulation 5(1) because the vehicle’s braking system was not maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair. The court assessed whether the cab would still have been crushed if the brakes had operated at optimum efficiency. On the evidence, the convoy was probably travelling at about 50–55 kph and the claimant’s emergency-braking speed was probably lower. The reduction in impact speed attributable to the defect was therefore materially below the level capable of avoiding the crushing of the cab. The defect could not be said to have caused or contributed to the injuries.
4. Responsibility for the accident. The claimant should have kept a sufficient distance from the vehicle ahead to stop even if it braked abruptly in an emergency. Although the drivers of the two vehicles further ahead had also driven too close and had to stop sharply, their conduct did not make them joint causes of the accident. The claimant’s negligence was the pre-eminent and sole effective cause.
5. Disposition. The claim was dismissed and judgment was entered for the Ministry of Defence. The parties were given 14 days to agree costs, failing which the issue would be determined on written representations.

First-instance judgment. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.