Goad v Butcher & Anor

A driver turning across an oncoming lane must take reasonable care in light of the vehicle’s length and speed, the obstruction created by the manoeuvre, and the possibility that an approaching road user is temporarily out of sight or exceeding the speed limit. Breach of the Highway Code is evidence which may support negligence, but its significance depends on the circumstances and the claimant affected. A court must identify a causative breach of duty, rather than assume that a different manoeuvre would have avoided the accident. On the majority view, 110 metres’ visibility was sufficient and the accident was caused solely by the motorcyclist’s excessive speed.

The claimant was seriously injured when his motorcycle collided with a tractor and trailer turning right into a side road. The tractor driver had slowed to about 4 mph, but cut the corner and entered the wrong slip lane. The claimant was travelling at about 55–65 mph on a road subject to a 40 mph limit, lost control while braking, and collided with the vehicle.

The High Court, before His Honour Judge Seymour Q.C., held that the corner-cutting did not cause the accident, found the claimant entirely to blame, and dismissed the claim: [2010] EWHC 1144 (QB). The claimant appealed, arguing that the turn was started too early and that the breach of paragraph 156 of the Highway Code was causative negligence.

1. Appeal dismissed by the majority. Moore-Bick LJ held, with Mummery LJ agreeing, that the relevant question was whether it was negligent to begin the turn at the time and place chosen, not whether the driver had cut the corner in breach of the Highway Code.
2. A driver must take reasonable care towards road users whom he should reasonably foresee might be affected. In a manoeuvre obstructing the oncoming lane, the driver must account for the length and speed of the vehicle, the duration of the obstruction, the possibility of an unseen road user coming into view, and the possibility that that road user may be exceeding the speed limit.
3. Failure to achieve the best possible viewing position is not automatically negligence. The issue was whether 110 metres’ visibility was sufficient for a reasonably prudent driver of a slow-moving, lengthy vehicle. On the evidence, it was sufficient in the bright, dry conditions. The driver was not required to foresee a motorcycle travelling so fast that its rider could not control it or avoid the collision.
4. A breach of the Highway Code does not itself establish negligence. The court must identify a breach of duty owed to the claimant and a causal connection with the accident. It cannot reach that conclusion merely by postulating different facts resulting from a different positioning of the vehicle.
5. Applying Clayton v Lambert [2009] EWCA Civ 237, the occurrence of an accident does not itself establish negligence, particularly where proper speed and reaction would have avoided it.
6. Jackson LJ dissented. Relying on paragraph 156 of the Highway Code and section 38(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, he regarded the corner-cutting as negligence in these circumstances. He nevertheless considered that the claimant bore the principal responsibility and would have allowed the appeal subject to a 75% reduction for contributory negligence.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2011] EWCA Civ 158: appeal dismissed by Moore-Bick LJ, with Mummery LJ agreeing; Jackson LJ would have allowed the appeal subject to a 75% reduction for contributory negligence.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division [2010] EWHC 1144 (QB): His Honour Judge Seymour Q.C. dismissed the claim, holding that the claimant was entirely to blame.