Ayres v Odedra

A driver who encounters a pedestrian obstructing the road must take reasonable care before moving off. Where the pedestrian is stationary, apparently intoxicated and unable to move quickly, the driver should wait until it is safe to proceed. A driver cannot rely on unusual or anti-social pedestrian behaviour to justify moving while there remains a foreseeable risk of injury.

Contributory negligence requires comparison of the parties’ causative potency and blameworthiness. A pedestrian’s foolish or dangerous conduct may attract a reduction, but the driver’s responsibility remains predominant where the accident results from moving off without adequately observing the pedestrian.

The claimant sought damages for severe brain and other injuries suffered when he was struck and run over by the defendant’s car in Leicester city centre. The defendant had stopped while the claimant stood in front of the vehicle after entering the road in an intoxicated state with his trousers around his ankles.

The principal issues were whether the claimant had been struck while standing or had fallen independently, whether the defendant had acted deliberately or recklessly, whether primary negligence was established, and whether the claimant’s conduct amounted to contributory negligence.

1. Factual findings. The claimant was struck while standing in front of the defendant’s car and was then run over. The defendant’s account of a hostile crowd before the accident was rejected. The defendant had misjudged the claimant’s slow movement towards the pavement and had driven forward while the claimant remained in the vehicle’s path.
2. Intentional conduct. The evidence did not establish that the defendant deliberately drove at the claimant or acted recklessly as to whether he would be struck.
3. Primary liability. The claimant’s conduct caused no immediate danger while the car was stationary. Although the claimant was drunk, obstructing the road and behaving anti-socially, the defendant was required to observe him and wait until he was safely clear before moving. The circumstances differed materially from Lee North v TNT Express (UK) Ltd, [2001] EWCA Civ 853, where the driver’s slow movement with a person on the vehicle was held reasonable in the particular circumstances.
4. Contributory negligence. Under section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, responsibility is apportioned by comparing the parties’ causative potency and blameworthiness. That approach, endorsed in Satnam Rehill v Rider Holdings Ltd, [2012] EWCA Civ 628, following Eagle v Chambers, [2003] EWCA Civ 1107, [2004] RTR 9, applied. The claimant’s deliberate obstruction of the road, intoxication and restricted movement contributed to the accident, but the defendant bore far greater responsibility because he moved off while the claimant remained in danger and then continued forward after impact.
5. Disposition. Liability was apportioned 80 per cent to the defendant and 20 per cent to the claimant.