Dawson v Angela

An appellate court should be slow to interfere with a trial judge’s evaluation of evidence, particularly where negligence involves an assessment of degree. That restraint does not prevent intervention where the judgment contains a material contradiction or fails to address an applicable legal standard. A driver on a narrow road must travel at a speed allowing the vehicle to stop within the distance visible ahead, so as to avoid causing damage to other road users. The Highway Code is relevant to that assessment and must be addressed where it bears directly on the issue.

The claimant appealed against the dismissal by the Chichester County Court of his claim for agreed damages arising from a road traffic collision. The sole issue was liability. The claimant’s vehicle was stationary on a narrow, damp country lane when the defendant’s vehicle came over a brow at about 15 to 20 miles per hour and collided with it. The trial judge found both drivers reasonably competent and concluded that neither was at fault. The central issue was whether the defendant had driven too fast in the circumstances, having regard to visibility and the stopping-distance guidance in the Highway Code.

1. The appeal was allowed. The trial judge’s findings of primary fact were not materially disputed, and the appellate court accepted that appellate caution was required when reviewing an evaluation of evidence. That caution did not justify upholding a conclusion inconsistent with the judge’s own findings.

2. The trial judge had accepted that the defendant could not stop within the distance she could see ahead at the speed at which she was travelling. That conclusion conflicted with the finding that she was not driving too fast and with the conclusion that neither driver was at fault.

3. A driver using a single-track road must drive at a speed which permits stopping if necessary without damaging other road users. In practical terms, the defendant’s speed had to permit her to stop before reaching the claimant’s stationary vehicle. The stopping-distance guidance in paragraph 105 of the Highway Code was directly relevant.

4. The trial judge had not dealt adequately with the Highway Code’s direction concerning speed and visibility. If he considered that guidance irrelevant or inapplicable, he needed to explain why. His failure to address the conflict and the relevant guidance amounted to an error which made the conclusion on negligence unsustainable.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): allowed the appeal against the dismissal of the claim by the Chichester County Court.
• Chichester County Court: dismissed the claimant’s claim for agreed damages, holding that neither driver was at fault.