Brown v Paterson

A driver approaching a junction is not subject to an absolute prohibition on overtaking. Under Highway Code rules 142 and 143, the question is whether the circumstances created genuine doubt or a risk of conflict with another road user. The assessment depends on what a reasonably careful driver could appreciate at the time. A motorcyclist’s slowing, without braking, signalling or other indication of an intended turn, did not make the limited overtaking manoeuvre negligent. A breach of the Highway Code would not by itself establish negligence or create a presumption of negligence; it would be one circumstance relevant to the assessment.

Mr Brown, riding a motorcycle, was seriously injured when he turned right across the path of Dr Paterson’s car on the A420 at night. The Recorder found that Mr Brown was negligent and that Dr Paterson was not negligent. He dismissed Mr Brown’s personal injury claim and gave judgment for Dr Paterson on the counterclaim for damage to the car.

Mr Brown appealed, accepting the finding of negligence against him but arguing that Dr Paterson had also been negligent in overtaking near junctions, failing to slow down, and failing to warn him. The central issue was whether the Recorder had been wrong in finding no negligence by Dr Paterson.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder’s decision was not wrong on the evidence and involved no error of law.
2. Rules 142 and 143 of the Highway Code did not prohibit the overtaking manoeuvre. Rule 142 applies where there is doubt about whether overtaking is safe. Rule 143 does not impose an absolute prohibition on overtaking near a junction. Whether a junction creates a risk of conflict depends on all the circumstances.
3. The relevant circumstances included the motorcycle’s position, speed, lack of indicator or hand signal, absence of brake lights, darkness, road visibility, and the absence of other vehicles whose headlights would have revealed a possible conflict. On the findings, a reasonably careful driver would not have regarded the motorcycle’s intended right turn as a real possibility.
4. The driver was not negligent merely because he was closing on the motorcycle quickly, since he had only the motorcycle’s rear light to judge by and did not see brake lights. Even if he had appreciated that the motorcycle was slowing, that fact alone did not put him on notice of an intended right turn.
5. No heightened precautions were required. There was no need to reduce speed, flash full-beam headlights, or sound the horn. The car’s dipped headlights could be seen, and flashing might have dazzled the oncoming cyclist.
6. For completeness, a breach of the Highway Code would not alone establish negligence or create a presumption of negligence. It would be a circumstance relevant to whether negligence was proved. The Recorder’s confusion in referring to causation evidence did not undermine his conclusion on negligence.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2010] EWCA Civ 184 — appeal from Bristol County Court dismissed. The court upheld the finding that the motorcyclist was negligent and that the driver was not negligent.
• Bristol County Court: judgment of Recorder Hill-Smith — the negligence claim was dismissed and judgment was given for the defendant on the counterclaim.