Stangroom & Anor v Brown

In a negligence claim, liability must rest on an allegation advanced at trial, put to the defendant and supported by evidence. A court should not infer that a precaution would have improved safety without evidence that it would have made a material difference. On the facts, a tractor driver leaving a lay-by was not negligent merely because he crossed the verge, failed to use another person as a guide or did not activate a hazard light. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim.

A motorcyclist died after colliding with a tractor and trailer on a bend. The Norwich County Court found that the motorcyclist’s excessive speed was the primary cause, but held the tractor driver 25 per cent liable. The alleged negligence included failing to use an assistant or warning light, failing to sound the horn, and crossing the grass verge when leaving the lay-by. The defendants appealed, contending that the deceased’s negligence was the sole cause. The central issues were whether the findings of breach and causation were supported by evidence and whether liability could rest on an allegation not advanced at trial.

Stanley Burnton LJ gave the judgment, with which the Master of the Rolls and Longmore LJ agreed. The appeal was allowed and the claim was dismissed.

1. The trial judge clearly found only that the tractor driver’s decision to cross the grass verge constituted negligence. The other alleged precautions were not clearly found to have been breaches of duty.
2. There was no evidential basis for concluding that the tractor’s hazard warning light would have been visible to the deceased earlier than the tractor and trailer. If the judge made such a finding, it was erroneous. It was also conceded that sounding the horn would probably have made no difference.
3. The tractor driver was not negligent in emerging from the lay-by without assistance. A motorcyclist travelling at the speed found by the judge was unlikely to have been alerted more effectively by a pedestrian than by the substantial tractor and trailer. The available visibility was sufficient for a motorist travelling 10 mph above the speed limit to stop, and there was no evidence that positioning an assistant nearer the bend would have improved the sightline.
4. The grass-verge allegation could not be upheld because it formed no part of the respondent’s case at trial and was not put to the tractor driver. In any event, crossing the verge was evidence of care rather than carelessness. There was no evidence that a marginally quicker emergence would have been safer or would have avoided the accident.

Although the deceased’s excessive speed was the major causative factor, the finding of 25 per cent liability against the defendants could not stand.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2012] EWCA Civ 424, the appeal was allowed and the claim dismissed.
2. Norwich County Court (sitting in Cambridge): His Honour Judge Yelton held the defendants 25 per cent liable for the fatal accident, loss and damage.