Pykett v Ebony Clement & Anor

A driver being overtaken is not generally required to slow down or take other steps to rescue a motorist who has created a dangerous overtaking situation. Liability may arise where the driver being overtaken deliberately accelerates, drives unpredictably, or otherwise prevents the manoeuvre, but responsibility depends on the facts. A steady course includes reasonable speed changes responding to bends, hills and other road conditions. Where the overtaking driver remains in the wrong lane and could safely return behind the vehicle ahead, the driver ahead is not negligent merely because he maintains an appropriate course and speed.

Ms Ebony Clement’s insurers sought a contribution from the estate of Graeme Pykett and his insurers following a serious road collision. Ms Clement had attempted to overtake Mr Pykett on a narrow, winding road and collided with an oncoming van. It was accepted that Ms Clement was negligent and bore the major responsibility for the accident.

The live issue was whether Mr Pykett had contributed to the collision by accelerating, slowing down or driving erratically so as to prevent Ms Clement from returning to her lane. The claim was determined at first instance after the estate’s original claim for vehicle damage had been settled.

1. The Part 20 claim was dismissed. The court found that the accident was caused by Ms Clement’s two dangerous attempts to overtake on a narrow stretch of road containing dips, bends and S-bends.
2. The court accepted that a driver who deliberately prevents an overtaking manoeuvre may bear a significant share of responsibility for a resulting collision. The issue is fact-sensitive. Ogden & Chadwick v Barber & Higgs [2008] EWCA Civ 1113 illustrated that principle.
3. On the evidence, Mr Pykett maintained a steady course and speed consistent with the changing road conditions. Any acceleration before the first bend and after the S-bends was gradual, appropriate and natural. The independent evidence showed that neither vehicle gained materially on the following van.
4. The court applied the reasoning in Smith v Cribben [1994] PIQR 218. Mr Pykett was not required to slow down merely to assist Ms Clement in avoiding dangers created by her own driving. She should have abandoned the overtaking attempt and pulled in behind him.
5. Mr Pykett’s driving was consistent with paragraph 168 of the Highway Code. He did not drive negligently or cause or contribute to the collision.

The judgment was a first-instance determination of the Part 20 contribution claim. The judgment records that the estate’s original claim for vehicle damage had previously been settled by payment of £9,750, without admission of liability.