Frost v Oldfield

In a road-traffic negligence claim, the court must determine the point of impact and responsibility from the whole evidential picture. That includes reliable factual evidence, physical scene evidence and expert analysis. Expert conclusions may be rejected where they depend on an assumed point of impact, fail to address material evidence, or require an implausible accident mechanism. Where one motorcyclist negligently enters the opposing lane and causes the collision, that rider may be held wholly responsible.

These consolidated claims arose from a collision between motorcycles ridden by Trevor Frost and David Frank Oldfield on the A537 Cat and Fiddle road. Each rider alleged that the other had been in the wrong lane. The principal issue was the location of the impact and, consequently, which rider had caused the collision by negligent lane positioning. The court considered eyewitness evidence, the physical evidence recorded at the scene, and competing expert reconstructions. Damages were to be addressed separately.

1. Outcome. Judgment was entered for Mr Frost on his claim. Mr Oldfield’s claim was dismissed. The collision was caused wholly by Mr Oldfield’s negligence.
2. The court assessed the factual and expert evidence together. It accepted the evidence of Mrs Murgatroyd and Mr Mohr concerning the riders’ movements and speeds before the collision. That evidence supported the conclusion that Mr Frost was travelling on his proper side and that Mr Oldfield was approaching the relevant bend at excessive speed.
3. The track of the detached Moto Morini wheel and the associated mark in the southern verge were especially significant. They supported an impact in the Macclesfield-bound lane, as contended for by Mr Frost. The court preferred Mr Manderson’s reconstruction, which was consistent with the scene evidence and the accepted factual evidence.
4. Dr Chinn’s reconstruction was rejected. It depended on assessing speed before fixing the impact point, failed adequately to address PC Binns’s opinion, and required a nearside-to-nearside wheel impact followed by an implausible reversal of the wheel’s direction. That theory was inconsistent with the accepted offside-to-offside collision, the damage, and the direction in which the motorcycles fell.
5. The alternative submission that both motorcycles had remained on their own sides but collided near the centre line did not arise on the findings. The impact occurred in the westbound carriageway, so Mr Oldfield was wholly responsible.