Rainford v Lawrenson

A motorist approaching children near opposing bus stops must anticipate the real risk that a child may step into the carriageway. Reasonable precautions may include reducing speed, covering the brakes, sounding the horn or moving towards the centre line. The standard is that of a reasonably competent and alert motorist, not an ideal driver, and must be applied without 20/20 hindsight. A child’s conduct is assessed by reference to a child of the same age, intelligence and experience. Contributory negligence remains fact-sensitive. A 14-year-old who stepped into the road was held equally responsible with the driver, producing a 50% reduction.

The claimant, aged 14 years and 8 months, suffered severe injuries, including a serious head injury, when she stepped into the path of the defendant’s car while walking towards a bus stop. The court tried liability as a preliminary issue. It considered conflicting evidence about whether the claimant and the other children were already standing in the carriageway, the defendant’s speed and position, visibility, the location of opposing bus stops and dropped kerbs, and the expert accident-reconstruction evidence.

The central issues were whether the defendant was negligent and, if so, whether the claimant was contributorily negligent and at what percentage.

1. Primary liability. The applicable standard was that of a reasonably competent and alert motorist in the circumstances found, rather than an ideal driver. The court had to avoid 20/20 hindsight. The defendant knew the road, saw schoolchildren near a bus stop, knew that children were present on both sides of the road, and had clear visibility on a straight stretch.
2. Those circumstances created a real risk that one of the children might step into the road to reach the opposite bus stop. A reasonably prudent motorist should therefore have taken precautionary measures, such as reducing speed, covering the brakes, sounding the horn or moving closer to the centre line. The experts’ tables were a useful tool, but did not determine the issue. The defendant could have shortened her perception-response time and might have avoided the collision.
3. The court found that the claimant walked into the road from the edge of the footway and that the defendant failed to keep a proper lookout and take appropriate precautions. Primary liability therefore rested with the defendant.
4. Contributory negligence. The claimant knew the Green Cross Code and was sufficiently mature to bear responsibility for stepping into the road. However, she was at an intended crossing point marked by opposing dropped kerbs, and the defendant should also have anticipated the risk and acted. Applying the child standard and the fact-sensitive approach to apportionment, the claimant’s contribution was assessed at 50%, not 75%.
5. The claim therefore succeeded on primary liability, subject to a 50% reduction for contributory negligence. Costs and other consequential matters were reserved for written determination or handing down.