Ahanonu v South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd

A defendant’s duty in negligence is to take reasonable care, not to guarantee a claimant’s safety. The standard must be assessed in the real conditions confronting the defendant, without hindsight or a counsel of perfection.

A driver need not maintain a constant lookout for an exceptionally dangerous and unforeseeable pedestrian movement where doing so would distract from a more immediate and serious traffic hazard. An appellate court may overturn a trial judge’s evaluative conclusion where the overall circumstances admit no finding of negligence.

The claimant was injured when she became trapped between the rear nearside of the defendants’ bus and a bollard as the bus negotiated a tight exit from Peckham Bus Station.

His Honour Judge Peter Latham found the driver negligent, while holding the claimant 50 per cent contributorily negligent. The defendants appealed, contending that the driver had no reasonable opportunity or duty to prevent the accident, and alternatively that the deduction for contributory negligence was inadequate.

The central issue was whether reasonable care required the driver to check his nearside mirror frequently during the turn, notwithstanding the need to watch the bus immediately ahead.

1. Appeal allowed. The defendants were not liable. Lord Justice Lawrence Collins held that the trial judge’s finding of negligence could not stand; Mrs Justice Black agreed, and Lord Justice Laws also agreed.

2. The trial judge was entitled to find that the driver had not looked in his nearside mirror immediately before the collision. That factual finding did not, however, establish a breach of duty. The proper question was whether a reasonably competent bus driver, faced with the actual risks of the manoeuvre, ought to have looked there more frequently.

3. The claimant had taken an extraordinarily dangerous route to the rear nearside of a bus already negotiating a tight turn. Although pedestrians sometimes entered the carriageway, the driver had no reason to anticipate a pedestrian in that position. The turn lasted only seconds and avoiding the collision would have required constant mirror checks.

4. Those checks would themselves have created a serious danger. The driver was following another bus closely and had to watch for it stopping suddenly. Diverting attention from that immediate risk could have caused a serious collision. Requiring constant attention to the mirror therefore imposed a counsel of perfection rather than the duty to take reasonable care.

5. Lord Justice Laws added that negligence must not be assessed through hindsight in the leisure of the courtroom. A duty of reasonable care must not be distorted into a guarantee of safety.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the defendants’ appeal and held that they were not liable.
• Central London Civic Justice Centre: His Honour Judge Peter Latham held the driver negligent and assessed the claimant’s contributory negligence at 50 per cent.