Davies v Cullip

In a road-traffic collision, appellate intervention is not justified by precise calculations based on uncertain estimates of speed, distance and reaction time. A trial judge may accept credible evidence supported by the physical dimensions and surrounding circumstances. A possible slight deviation across a road marking does not amount to contributory negligence unless it causally contributes to the collision. A driver emerging from a forecourt and turning right must ensure that the available gap is safe and that the view is not obstructed. Entering without stopping when an approaching vehicle may be concealed is negligent.

The claimant was injured when his motorcycle collided with a car driven by the defendant, who was emerging from a petrol station forecourt and turning right. The claimant had overtaken a slowly turning vehicle near an area marked by broken white lines and hatchings.

The Salisbury County Court, sitting through Mr Recorder Norman, determined liability and found the defendant wholly to blame. The defendant appealed, arguing that mathematical analysis showed that the claimant must have entered the hatched area while overtaking, in breach of Rule 109 of the Highway Code, and had thereby contributed to the accident. The central issues were whether the Recorder was entitled to accept the claimant’s account and whether any slight deviation from his carriageway had causative significance.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Ward delivered the judgment, with Lord Justices Richards and Aikens agreeing.

1. The Recorder was entitled to accept the claimant’s evidence that he remained, albeit narrowly, on his side of the hatchings before swerving to avoid the defendant’s vehicle. The physical measurements were consistent with that account.
2. The defendant’s mathematical reconstruction did not provide a sound basis for overturning the finding of fact. The underlying estimates of vehicle speed and distance varied substantially. Calculations based on fractions of a second and tight tolerances were therefore too uncertain to displace the Recorder’s assessment of the evidence.
3. Even if the claimant had moved a short distance beyond the nearest broken white line, that fact would not establish contributory negligence without causation. The possible deviation was only a matter of a foot or so, and there was no evidence that it caused or contributed to the impact.
4. The defendant was negligent because he entered the main road and turned right when he could not be sure that the gap was safe. The slowly turning Ford could have obstructed his view of an approaching motorcycle. His failure to stop before emerging materially caused the collision.
5. On the Recorder’s findings, holding the defendant wholly liable was the only proper conclusion.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Under [2008] EWCA Civ 1620, the appeal was dismissed.
2. Salisbury County Court: Mr Recorder Norman found the defendant wholly liable on the issue of liability.