Qamili v Holt & Anor

In a pedestrian–vehicle collision, a driver's duty to take reasonable care to be aware of pedestrians remains fact-sensitive. Failure to see a pedestrian until impact does not, by itself, establish negligence. The court must assess matters including speed, traffic conditions, lookout, the surrounding pedestrian context, and the time and physical opportunity for avoidance. Where a pedestrian enters the vehicle's path at the last moment and no reasonable care could have prevented the collision, the driver is not liable in negligence or causation. An appellate court should not disturb findings of fact and negligence assessment where they were reasonably open on the evidence.

The appellant suffered serious injuries after crossing Cricklewood Broadway and walking into the offside front wing of a van driven by the first respondent, who was employed by the second respondent. The accident occurred in busy traffic. The trial judge found that the van was travelling at about 10–12 mph and that the appellant had crossed one carriageway before walking into the southbound carriageway without looking.

Mr Recorder Steynor concluded that the appellant had been visible, if at all, for too short a period for the driver to avoid the collision. The appeal concerned whether the driver owed a duty to anticipate a pedestrian emerging from the offside, whether the evidence established a breach of duty, and whether the driver caused the accident.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Rix held, with Lord Justice Toulson and Lord Justice Rimer agreeing, that the trial judge was entitled to find that the driver had not breached his duty and had not caused the accident.
2. A driver must take reasonable care to be aware of pedestrians on the road. The judge did not adopt a rule that drivers have no duty to look for pedestrians emerging from the offside. The relevance of lookout, the Highway Code, vulnerable pedestrians and other precautions depends on the particular facts.
3. There was no general rule that a driver's failure to observe a pedestrian until the moment of impact is highly presumptive of negligence. Short-warning pedestrian collisions require careful examination of matters such as speed, traffic conditions, the driver's lookout, the local pedestrian environment, and the time and physical space available for braking or swerving.
4. Pritchard v Ralph (7 November 2000, unreported) did not establish the alleged general proposition. It concerned a driver who had some time to see the pedestrian, whereas the present findings showed only a very short opportunity. Turner v Arriva North East Limited ([2006] EWCA Civ 410) illustrated that it would be a counsel of perfection to require a driver to concentrate on every aspect of a busy road at all times.
5. The appellant walked into the side of the van after emerging into the southbound carriageway at the last moment. On those findings, no amount of reasonable care could have prevented the collision. The appellate court could not interfere merely because another factual assessment might have been possible.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) ([2008] EWCA Civ 1625): dismissed the appeal.
• Bow County Court: Mr Recorder Steynor's judgment of 19 March 2008 found no breach of duty or causation on the evidence.