Bollito v Arriva London

A bus driver is negligent where, knowing that a passenger is caught or partially trapped between closing doors, he moves off and accelerates before the passenger is safe. Compliance with operational safety rules forms part of the assessment of reasonable care. The driver cannot rely on the difficulties created by traffic or the need to brake where those difficulties arose from his own decision to continue moving. A passenger’s unsafe conduct does not remove the driver’s duty of care, although it may support contributory negligence where established. On the facts found, the passenger neither deliberately obstructed the doors nor intentionally jumped, so no reduction for contributory negligence was appropriate.

The claimant suffered severe head injuries after falling from the defendant’s night bus in Haymarket, London. He and another man had boarded after pursuing the bus, while two companions approached behind them. The central factual issues were whether the bus was stationary or moving slowly, who opened the doors, whether the claimant deliberately obstructed the doors or became trapped, whether he fell or jumped, and whether the driver’s conduct caused the injury.

The claim required determination of the driver’s negligence and any contributory negligence attributable to the claimant.

1. Negligence. The driver opened the doors for the claimant and another passenger. The claimant remained on the threshold while looking towards his approaching companions. The driver knew that the claimant was between the doors when he operated the closing mechanism.
2. The driver closed the doors upon the claimant without warning, then set off or continued forward and accelerated to approximately 10–15 mph while the claimant remained trapped or partially trapped. He could have kept the bus stationary or slowed and stopped until the claimant was safe. His decision to accelerate created the danger and made it harder for him to monitor the claimant while attending to the road.
3. Rule 33 of the Drivers Rule Book required the driver to ensure that passengers boarded safely, to check before moving away, and not to move a bus in service with a passenger door open. The driver breached that rule. The breach was also negligence because the claimant was in a position of known potential danger.
4. The claimant did not deliberately block the doors. He was taken by surprise, struggled to free himself, lost his balance and fell. He did not intentionally jump or hop from the bus. The driver’s conduct was therefore a cause of the injury.
5. There was no contributory negligence on the facts found. The claimant’s claim succeeded for its full value.
6. Obiter. Had the claimant deliberately blocked the doors, the court would have assessed contributory negligence at 25 per cent if he fell and 50 per cent if he jumped. The driver’s culpability would nevertheless have remained high because moving off and accelerating with a passenger on the edge of the platform created an unnecessary danger.