Lakin v Lawrence & Anor

Where both parties’ conduct satisfies the but for test, that does not necessarily require liability to be apportioned. A claimant’s subsequent decision to continue a dangerous manoeuvre, despite having time to abort it, may break the causal connection between the defendant’s negligence and the accident. The Court of Appeal will rarely interfere with a trial judge’s causation findings after the judge has heard the evidence. The judgment must be read fairly as a whole rather than subjected to minute analysis of its wording.

The claimant was injured when his Subaru collided with the defendant’s Suzuki during an attempted overtaking manoeuvre on a narrow country road. The claimant brought proceedings, while the defendant pursued a counterclaim. The Luton County Court found that the claimant was entirely responsible, dismissed his claim and entered judgment on the counterclaim.

The claimant appealed, arguing that the judge had found the defendant negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and allowing his vehicle to drift towards the centre line, and should therefore have apportioned liability. The central issue was whether the claimant’s decision to continue overtaking broke the causal connection between the defendant’s negligence and the collision.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the claimant was entirely responsible for the collision.

1. The appeal was confined to the permitted ground. It was not open to the claimant to argue that continuing the manoeuvre was reasonable as an emergency decision made in the agony of the moment, particularly since that issue had not been argued at trial.
2. The Court of Appeal will rarely interfere with a trial judge’s findings on causation where the judge has heard the evidence. The judgment should be read fairly as a whole, rather than subjected to minute analysis of individual phrases. On that reading, the judge had found that the claimant was sufficiently far behind the Suzuki, when it wavered towards the centre line, to make a reasoned decision whether to proceed.
3. The but for test was satisfied in relation to both drivers. The defendant had been negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and, on the fair reading of the judgment, in allowing the Suzuki to drift. That did not require apportionment. The claimant knowingly continued an unsafe overtaking manoeuvre on a very narrow road despite having an opportunity to abort it. His conduct broke the causal connection between the defendant’s negligence and the collision.
4. Henderson v Cooke was not a true analogy. In that case the motorcyclist was already committed to overtaking at excessive speed before the defendant’s vehicle pulled out. Here, the claimant had not been placed in an unavoidable emergency and should not have continued.

The trial judge’s failure to address apportionment expressly was understandable because both parties had argued that the other was entirely to blame. Her factual conclusions nevertheless made the basis of the decision sufficiently clear. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2015] EWCA Civ 272, the court dismissed the claimant’s appeal and upheld the finding that he was entirely responsible.
2. Luton County Court — By order dated 27 June 2014, Her Honour Judge Lindsay Davies dismissed the claimant’s claim and entered judgment on the defendant’s counterclaim.