Pease v Bulmers Logistics Ltd

In a chain collision, a trial judge may infer causation from findings that a vehicle was travelling too close and made an unnecessary emergency stop, even where the following driver was also negligent. The causal link need not be expressed in formulaic terms where it is obvious from the findings. In apportioning contributory negligence, the court must evaluate each party’s contribution to the consequences. It need not use the expression causative potency if that evaluation is apparent from the judgment. An appellate court should not second-guess the trial judge’s apportionment merely because the reasoning is brief, where the conclusion is open on the evidence.

A seven-vehicle shunt occurred on the A14. The claimant’s heavy goods vehicle collided with the rear of a lorry operated by the defendant. The County Court rejected the claimant’s allegation that the defendant’s lorry had recently cut into the queue. It nevertheless found that both drivers were negligent: the defendant’s driver had followed too closely and made an unnecessary emergency stop, while the claimant had travelled too fast and too close to protect himself. The claim succeeded, subject to 50 per cent contributory negligence.

The defendant sought permission to appeal on causation and apportionment grounds. Permission was refused on paper and renewed orally before the Court of Appeal. The central questions were whether the County Court had established a sufficient causal link and whether it had properly evaluated the parties’ respective responsibility.

Permission refused on both grounds.

1. Causation. The County Court’s findings established a causative link between the defendant driver’s negligence and the collision. The findings were not limited to negligence in the abstract: the driver had followed too closely, made an unnecessary emergency stop, and thereby put the vehicles behind him in difficulty. The causal link was sufficiently obvious from those findings and did not need to be separately stated in formulaic terms.
2. [2008] EWCA Civ 1143. The reasoning in Lindesay v Lamb & Tatner focused on whether an unnecessary emergency stop caused difficulty for vehicles behind, rather than merely on whether the driver failed to stop before striking the vehicle ahead. The present findings fell within that analysis and supported causation.
3. Apportionment. Although the County Court gave no detailed analysis and did not use the expression causative potency, its statement that each driver contributed to the consequences showed that it had considered the relevant contribution of both parties. A rear-end collision does not automatically make the following driver more responsible. Apportionment is an evaluative judgment based on the evidence, and the Court of Appeal would not second-guess the equal division of responsibility in these circumstances.

The operative order was: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Permission to appeal was refused on both grounds after an oral renewal. The application was dismissed: [2011] EWCA Civ 1684.
• Cambridge County Court — The court found both drivers negligent, apportioned responsibility equally, and allowed the claim subject to 50 per cent contributory negligence.