Richardson v Butcher

A driver must exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent driver, assessed in the circumstances and without imposing a counsel of perfection or relying on hindsight. A driver may concentrate on one developing hazard for a reasonable period, but must still maintain a proper lookout when the road ahead should be under observation. Where a pedestrian is visible for sufficient time to permit avoidance, failure to see and react to the pedestrian may constitute negligent driving. Causation is established where an earlier proper lookout and braking would probably have avoided the collision.

The claimant, a child nearly nine years old, was seriously injured when struck by the defendant’s car on an urban road at night. The claim, issued in 2009, was tried on liability. The central issues were whether the defendant’s driving fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver and, if so, whether that breach caused the injuries. No contributory negligence was alleged because of the claimant’s age.

1. The court entered judgment for the claimant on liability, with damages to be assessed.

2. The applicable standard was that of the reasonable driver. The assessment had to reflect the realities of driving and avoid hindsight or a counsel of perfection. The court adopted the caution expressed in Ahanonu v South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 274.

3. The defendant had an uninterrupted view of the relevant pavement and road. The claimant had emerged from an alleyway, crossed the pavement and westbound carriageway, and slowed to a stop in the defendant’s path. He had probably been visible for at least two seconds before the defendant saw him.

4. The defendant had accelerated and changed gear after the vehicle ahead turned away. Her attention should therefore have been directed to the road ahead. Although a reasonable driver would not necessarily notice a moving object immediately, there was no reasonable explanation for failing to see the claimant for the additional period needed to brake.

5. The failure to see the claimant before he stopped in the defendant’s path amounted to a failure to keep a proper lookout. Had the defendant kept a proper lookout and braked sooner, the collision would probably have been avoided. Negligence and causation were therefore established.

6. The claimant recovered 100 per cent of his damages. The court observed that, had the same accident involved an adult pedestrian, contributory negligence would have been in the order of 75 per cent.