Jessop v Nixon

A driver emerging from a minor road onto a major road must take particular care where visibility is restricted, but is required to take only reasonable precautions. A speed limit is an absolute maximum, not an assurance that travelling at that speed is safe in all conditions. A motorist approaching a junction at night, with bends, parked vehicles and pedestrian facilities, may be required to travel substantially below the limit and anticipate emerging traffic. Where a defendant has taken reasonable care and the accident results from the claimant’s excessive and dangerous speed, liability is not established.

The claimant suffered severe traumatic brain injury when his motorcycle collided with the defendant’s car at a junction in Southampton. The defendant was emerging from a minor road and intended to turn right across the claimant’s path. The claimant alleged negligent driving and the defendant alleged that the accident was caused wholly by the claimant’s negligence, alternatively contributory negligence.

The court tried primary liability and contributory negligence as preliminary issues. The central questions were whether the defendant had failed to take reasonable care while emerging with restricted visibility, and whether the claimant’s speed and manner of driving caused the collision.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant was travelling at not less than 50 mph on a road subject to a 30 mph limit. In the circumstances, including darkness, bends, a pedestrian crossing, parked vehicles and the junction, it would not have been safe to travel at the maximum limit. The claimant should have been travelling significantly more slowly and anticipating traffic emerging from the minor road. His speed was about twice what was appropriate and amounted to reckless driving.
2. The defendant was negotiating a junction where parked cars severely restricted his view to the right. That required particular caution. He stopped with the front of his car between one and two metres into the major road, observed approaching traffic, waited for a vehicle from the left to pass, and then edged forward slowly while looking to the right.
3. The defendant’s car was stationary when the motorcycle struck it. The collision occurred shortly after the motorcycle came into the defendant’s view, when the defendant braked sharply. There was no convincing evidence that the defendant should have detected the motorcycle earlier by seeing its headlight or hearing its engine.
4. The defendant had taken all reasonable care. His precautions were sufficient to protect vehicles being driven along the road in a reasonably prudent manner. At a speed of 30 mph the claimant could have stopped well before the collision, or passed in front of the stationary car while remaining on his correct side of the road.
5. The suggested alternative strategy of remaining stationary and observing traffic through a gap beside the parked cars was not a necessary precaution. It would create practical difficulties and would not safely account for traffic approaching from either direction or emerging within the obscured area.
6. The accident was caused by the claimant’s failure to drive reasonably. The claim therefore failed.