Jones v Lawton

Road users must anticipate the risk of motorcycles passing stationary or slow-moving traffic near junctions. A driver emerging to turn across that traffic should edge forward, keep a proper lookout in both directions and take precautions that give an approaching rider time to react. A motorcyclist may pass such traffic, whether described as filtering or overtaking, but must do so slowly and remain alert to vehicles emerging from side roads. The Highway Code is not to be read as a statute. Contributory negligence is assessed by evaluating both causation and blameworthiness, including the relative causative potency of each party’s conduct.

The claimant was seriously injured when his motorcycle collided with the defendant’s Ford Mondeo on a main road in Plymouth. The defendant had emerged from a side road and was turning right across two lanes of slow-moving traffic. The claimant was riding along the outside of the opposing carriageway, passing the traffic, at approximately 30 mph or slightly more.

The claimant alleged that the defendant emerged without adequate observation. The defendant alleged that the claimant was riding too fast and on the wrong side of the road. Following a trial on liability alone, the central issues were each party’s breach of duty, causation and the appropriate apportionment of responsibility.

1. Liability. The defendant was primarily liable. A driver emerging from a side turning across slow-moving traffic must appreciate that a motorcycle may be approaching along the outside of the traffic. The driver should edge forward, look to the right after checking the left, and use the opportunity to alert an approaching rider. The defendant failed to take those precautions and failed to appreciate the significance of the motorcycle’s audible approach. Those failures caused the collision.
2. Claimant’s negligence. The claimant was entitled to pass the lines of traffic. It made no legal difference whether that manoeuvre was called filtering or overtaking. However, he was required to proceed slowly and maintain particular awareness of vehicles emerging from side turnings. At about 30 mph, he was travelling too fast to stop or slow when the defendant emerged. He failed to keep a proper lookout, did not notice the gap in the traffic or the Mondeo, and those failures were causative.
3. Apportionment. The court applied the approach identified by Lord Reid in Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 at 490, assessing both causation and blameworthiness. Although each party ignored an obvious risk, the defendant’s vehicle created the hazard by crossing the claimant’s path. The claimant was also a vulnerable road user. Responsibility was therefore apportioned two-thirds to the defendant and one-third to the claimant.
4. There was judgment for two-thirds of the claimant’s claim and for one-third of the counterclaim, with damages to be assessed.