Streeter v Hughes & Anor

A motorist who complies with the speed limit may nevertheless be negligent if the circumstances require a lower safe speed. Liability depends on whether the driver kept a proper lookout and had a reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision. Accident-reconstruction evidence must be assessed against reliable scene evidence and its methodological limitations. Pedestrian-based throw-distance research may materially overestimate the speed of a car involved in a collision with a cyclist. The court may assess damages despite finding no liability, where this is necessary to determine the issues raised.

The claimant, a cyclist aged 14 at the time, suffered tetraplegia in a collision with an uninsured motorist. He alleged excessive speed, failure to keep a proper lookout and driving across the centre line. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau conducted the defence. The principal liability issues were the motorist’s lateral position, speed, lookout and whether the collision was avoidable.

The court also heard extensive evidence on quantum, including accommodation, care, earnings, transport, therapies and future medical needs. The issue of periodical payments under the Damages Act 1996 was adjourned pending determination of liability.

1. Liability. The claim was dismissed. The motorist was driving within his nearside carriageway and at no more than the 30 mph limit. The parked vehicles and the approaching vehicle explained his position and made it unlikely that he was straddling the centre line. The claimant emerged from behind a parked van into the motorist’s path, leaving no reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision.
2. The motorist had discharged his duty to keep a proper lookout. He had looked towards the nearside before turning his attention to the approaching vehicle. The circumstances did not require him to do more. Compliance with the speed limit was not automatically exculpatory, but no lower safe speed was shown to have been required.
3. Expert reconstruction evidence had to be approached with appropriate regard to its theoretical limitations and tested against reliable eyewitness and scene evidence. The evidence concerning the position of the car, the distribution of glass and the claimant’s resting position favoured a collision within the nearside carriageway.
4. Pedestrian-based throw-distance research was unsuitable without substantial qualification in a collision involving a cyclist. The different centre of mass and collision dynamics were likely to produce an exaggerated estimate of vehicle speed. The court also rejected reliance on research involving unexplained variables and an unacceptable range of possible results. The claimant failed to prove excessive speed.
5. The court assessed damages in detail. It applied the principle of full, fair and reasonable compensation stated in Heil v Rankin [2001] 2 QB 272. It applied the accommodation methodology associated with Roberts v Johnstone. The issue of lump-sum or periodical-payment provision, discussed with reference to Thompstone v Thameside & Glossop NHS Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 5, was adjourned after the parties jointly proposed that it be determined after liability.