Rehill v Rider Holdings Ltd

In a road traffic injury claim, primary liability may be established where, on the balance of probabilities, a driver’s failure to brake promptly caused the vehicle to inflict serious injury, even though the pedestrian’s initial collision with the vehicle was unavoidable. A trial judge may make findings on timing, speed and stopping distance from the available evidence, and an appellate court should not interfere where those findings are reasonably open. Contributory negligence requires comparison of both parties’ causative potency and blameworthiness. Serious pedestrian fault may justify equal responsibility, but not necessarily greater responsibility than that of a bus driver whose failure to brake caused the more serious injury.

The claimant was struck and run over by a bus while crossing a road at a controlled pedestrian crossing in Bradford. The bus driver had pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention. The claimant brought a personal injury claim against the bus operator.

At Bradford County Court, Mr Recorder Miller found the defendant primarily liable, subject to one-third contributory negligence. The defendant appealed, challenging both causation and the apportionment of responsibility. The central issues were whether prompt braking would probably have prevented the claimant’s serious injuries and whether the claimant should bear a substantially greater share of responsibility.

The appeal was allowed to the limited extent of varying the finding of contributory negligence from one third to one half. Primary liability was upheld. Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Patten agreed with the judgment of Lord Justice Richards.

1. Causation. The driver was in breach of duty by failing to brake as promptly as he should have done. The Recorder was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the driver ought to have noticed the claimant leaving the pavement, that one and a half seconds was an appropriate period for thinking time, that impact occurred at about 13.17.34, and that the bus was travelling at about 4 mph.
2. The absence of expert evidence on stopping distances did not invalidate the Recorder’s conclusion that prompt braking would have stopped the bus within the relevant distance. The findings were supported by the CCTV, witness evidence and ordinary driving experience. The Recorder’s analysis was careful and reasonably open to him. There was therefore no proper basis for appellate interference.
3. Contributory negligence. Section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 requires a just and equitable apportionment. The court must realistically compare both parties, considering their respective causative potency and blameworthiness, as explained and applied in Eagle v Chambers [2003] EWCA Civ 1107.
4. The claimant was seriously blameworthy in crossing against the red signal and moving into the path of a bus. However, the serious injuries principally resulted from the driver’s failure to brake, and a heavy responsibility rested on the driver of a bus in a town centre. The claimant should therefore bear equal, but not greater, responsibility. The order was varied accordingly.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2012] EWCA Civ 628, the appeal was allowed only to vary the apportionment of contributory negligence from one third to one half.
• Bradford County Court: Mr Recorder Miller found the defendant liable for the claimant’s injuries, subject to one-third contributory negligence.