Woodham v Turner (t/a Turners of Great Barton)

A driver emerging from a minor road must not advance beyond the available sightline where an obstructing vehicle creates a foreseeable risk of collision with an approaching or filtering motorcyclist. Moving very slowly does not by itself discharge that duty. A motorcyclist filtering past stationary or slow-moving traffic near a junction must substantially reduce speed or refrain from overtaking where an emerging vehicle is reasonably foreseeable. Responsibility is apportioned by assessing the relative contribution of each breach to the collision and injury.

The claimant was seriously injured when his motorcycle collided with a coach driven by the defendant’s employee. The coach was turning right from a minor road onto the A143 through a gap left by a stationary tractor and trailer. The claimant was travelling along the A143 and overtaking or filtering past queued traffic. Liability was tried as a preliminary issue. The court had to determine whether the coach driver was negligent, whether the claimant failed to take reasonable care for his own safety, and the appropriate division of responsibility.

1. Coach driver’s breach. The coach driver was negligent. She knew that the tractor substantially obstructed her view to the right. Advancing through the gap, even at very low speed, meant that she was moving blindly into a foreseeable path of an approaching motorcyclist. The relevant guidance required her to wait if she could not be confident that no collision would occur. Reasonable alternatives included waiting for a more favourable gap or approaching the junction nearer to perpendicular to the major road.

2. The risk did not depend on the motorcyclist travelling fast. The configuration of the vehicles and the obstructed sightline created a foreseeable risk even if the motorcycle was travelling slowly. Farley v Buckley [2007] EWCA Civ 403 was distinguished because the finding of no negligence in that case depended on the motorcyclist’s reckless conduct not being reasonably foreseeable.

3. Claimant’s contributory negligence. The claimant also failed to exercise reasonable care. He knew, or ought to have known, that a vehicle might emerge through the gap at the junction. He overtook the stationary tractor at about 20 mph, rather than waiting or proceeding sufficiently slowly to permit evasive action. The risk of a vehicle emerging from the junction was obvious and foreseeable.

4. Apportionment. The coach driver bore the greater responsibility because she was emerging from a minor road, owed priority to traffic on the major road, approached at an angle that impaired visibility, and advanced beyond her sightline. Liability was apportioned 70 per cent to the defendant and 30 per cent to the claimant for contributory negligence.