Hickman v London Central Bus Company Ltd

A driver turning into a road has a continuing duty to keep a proper lookout towards the road ahead and its potential hazards. The duty is judged objectively and is not confined to those moments when the driver chooses to look ahead. A driver must accommodate known obstructions to vision and give priority to pedestrians already crossing. A pedestrian may be contributorily negligent for crossing when traffic is poised to move, particularly against red/amber lights, but the parties’ responsibility depends on their relative causation and blameworthiness. A failure of lookout may remain the dominant cause even where the pedestrian’s conduct created the risk.

The claimant was struck by a bus while crossing Victoria Street, London, as the defendant’s driver completed a left turn into that road. The claimant suffered head injuries and brought a personal injury claim. Liability was the only issue.

The evidence included CCTV footage, expert collision-investigation evidence and witness testimony. The court considered the driver’s lookout, the visibility of the claimant, the effect of a windscreen blind spot, the claimant’s decision to cross while the buses were stationary and showing red/amber, causation, contributory negligence and apportionment.

1. Negligence. The driver was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout. A driver turning into a road must scan the road ahead and satisfy herself that it is safe to enter. That duty continues while the vehicle proceeds and is assessed by objective standards. Excessive attention to mirrors and the nearside did not discharge it.
2. The claimant was visible and sufficiently conspicuous to be seen. The driver should have seen him when looking ahead and should have compensated for the windscreen blind spot by the relatively small movement required. The failure to see another pedestrian crossing the road while the bus was stationary further demonstrated the defective lookout.
3. Priority and causation. The claimant was already in the road when the bus moved off. Rule 170 of the Highway Code required the driver to watch for pedestrians crossing the road into which she was turning and to give way. With a proper lookout, the driver would probably have seen the claimant in time to brake, slow down or change course and avoid the collision.
4. Contributory negligence. The claimant was negligent in crossing when the buses were poised to move and the lights were red/amber. He should have waited for the buses to move off or for the lights to change. His later decision to run was an instinctive response to the perceived danger, but the earlier decision placed him in that dilemma.
5. Balancing causation and blameworthiness, the defendant was 60% responsible and the claimant 40% responsible. Judgment was entered against the defendant for 60% of the full value of the claim.

This was a first-instance decision in the High Court. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.