Gray v Botwright

In a road collision at a single long staggered junction, a driver's breach in crossing a red light can remain causative of an impact occurring further inside the junction. The relevant question is whether the collision was within the scope of the duty breached. Where the signal was designed to prevent the danger that materialised, a spatial gap does not make the breach spent. A driver who has entered against a red light must take particular care and slow when a vehicle crosses his path and another may follow. A claimant's failure to look may constitute substantial contributory negligence, but does not necessarily make it the sole cause. An appellate court should not reassess general damages merely because it would choose another figure; intervention requires the wrong bracket.

The claimant was injured when turning right across a carriageway at a long staggered junction. The defendant had driven through a red traffic light and then collided with the claimant's vehicle. At first instance, the Norwich County Court found that the claimant's failure to look was the sole cause and dismissed the claim, relying on the coincidence of location reasoning in Whittle v Bennett. HHJ Moloney dismissed the claimant's appeal. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal on liability and quantum. The central issues were whether the defendant's red-light breach remained causative of the collision, whether he should have slowed after seeing another vehicle cross his path, and whether the general damages award was too low.

1. The appeal on liability was allowed. The claimant was negligent because he crossed the southbound carriageway without looking. On the district judge's findings, that negligence was a substantial cause because the collision was inevitable once he began crossing.

2. The defendant's negligence was also causative. The junction was a single long staggered junction, not a series of separate junctions. The traffic lights regulated the movement of vehicles through the whole junction. By crossing the red light, the defendant created the very danger which the lights were intended to prevent. The collision was therefore within the scope of the duty breached. The case was distinguished from Whittle v Bennett [2006] EWCA Civ 1538.

3. The defendant had a particular duty to take care because he had entered the junction at the wrong time. Although his general speed was not excessive, he should have slowed when he saw the Land Rover cross his path, since there was a risk that another vehicle would follow. The case was materially different from Radburn v Kemp [1971] 1 WLR 1502, where the defendant had entered the junction through a green light.

4. Both parties had driven extremely badly. Liability was apportioned equally, with contributory negligence assessed at 50 per cent. The substituted award was £2,378.84, together with appropriate further interest.

5. The appeal on quantum was dismissed. The general damages award was low but remained within the proper bracket. The Court of Appeal should not make a fresh assessment merely because it might select a different figure; intervention requires that the first-instance judge entered the wrong bracket. The 10 per cent uplift introduced in April 2013 did not apply because the conditional fee agreement pre-dated the commencement of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 9 July 2014, the liability appeal was allowed and the quantum appeal dismissed. Liability was apportioned 50/50 and an award of £2,378.84 was substituted.
2. Norwich County Court: District Judge Pugh dismissed the claim after finding the claimant solely responsible. HHJ Moloney dismissed the claimant's appeal on 11 November 2013.