Green v Haynes

A driver who experiences illness before setting out must assess whether the condition may worsen and impair judgment or driving ability. Driving in those circumstances may breach the duty owed to other road users. If driving is nevertheless reasonable, the driver should adopt a speed and lane position that permit stopping safely if the condition worsens. A driver who has sufficient warning of impending syncope to brake or move towards the roadside may be negligent if that opportunity is not taken.

The claimant suffered very serious injuries when his stationary vehicle was struck from behind at a traffic-light-controlled junction by the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant accepted that he had lost consciousness after a vaso-vagal syncope triggered by abdominal pain, but denied liability and relied on automatism. The claimant alleged that the defendant had been negligent in driving after becoming unwell and in driving too fast and in the outside lane. The central issues were whether the defendant should have appreciated that his condition might impair his driving, whether his speed and lane position were negligent, and whether he had sufficient warning before losing consciousness to take avoiding action.

Judgment was entered for the claimant on liability, with damages to be assessed.

1. The defendant’s evidence about his condition before driving was rejected in material respects. He had felt very unwell, with gastric upset and abdominal pain, and had asked his wife to obtain an urgent medical appointment. The court found that this was inconsistent with mild indigestion or minor cold symptoms.
2. A driver who feels sufficiently unwell to appreciate that the condition may deteriorate and impair judgment or driving ability should not drive. The defendant should have appreciated that risk and was negligent in driving from the conference centre.
3. The defendant was travelling at a speed exceeding 60 mph, probably close to 70 mph, and was in the outside lane. In view of his condition, if driving had nevertheless been reasonable, he should have used the inside lane and travelled at a speed allowing him to stop safely at the roadside if necessary.
4. The expert evidence established that, even on the defendant’s account, there was sufficient time after the onset of severe abdominal pain to commence braking. The court rejected his evidence that he had no opportunity to remove his foot from the accelerator.
5. The precise duration of the prodrome could not be established, but on the balance of probabilities it lasted longer than two or three seconds. The defendant therefore had sufficient warning that, had he been travelling more slowly in the inside lane and ready to pull over, the collision would have been avoided.

The defendant was negligent both in driving when he was unwell and in the speed and manner of his driving. The automatism defence did not exonerate him.