Buswell v Symes & Anor

A driver entering a public road from a field must take reasonable care in light of the road layout, visibility and the foreseeable presence of other road users, including slow-moving agricultural vehicles. A driver who recognises, or ought to recognise, a substantial risk but proceeds without adequate precautions may be negligent. Motorcyclists also owe a duty to adjust their speed to obvious hazards. Excessive speed over a blind summit may amount to contributory negligence even where the other driver created the immediate obstruction. Responsibility is apportioned according to the parties’ relative blameworthiness and causative contribution.

The claimant’s motorcycle collided with a tractor and trailer driven by the first defendant as he turned from a field onto a rural road. The claimant had no recollection of the collision. The trial concerned liability only, including whether the tractor driver was negligent, whether the claimant was contributorily negligent, and the appropriate apportionment of responsibility.

The Motor Insurers Bureau was the second defendant because the tractor was uninsured. The court assessed the competing factual, expert and road-safety evidence and determined the parties’ respective responsibility for the collision.

1. First defendant’s negligence. The first defendant was negligent in driving the tractor and trailer onto the B3399 from the field exit. He knew, or should have known, that the manoeuvre created a significant risk to road users approaching over the brow of the hill. He either foresaw that danger and took the risk, or failed to foresee it when he ought to have done so.
2. Claimant’s contributory negligence. The claimant was travelling at approximately 70 mph when he came over the blind summit. The court preferred the evidence of Mr Parkin on braking and rejected the suggestion that the motorcyclists were racing. Nevertheless, the speed was excessive in the circumstances. The dangers of travelling quickly over a blind summit were obvious, and the claimant should have appreciated the possibility of an obstruction or other hazard.
3. Foreseeable agricultural traffic. In assessing the claimant’s conduct, the court relied on the observation in Hames v Ferguson and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1268 that slow-moving agricultural vehicles entering or leaving fields are not unusual on country roads in summer. The court also referred to Arnott v Sprake and another [2001] EWCA Civ 341 and Lambert v Jenny Natasha Clayton (Administratrix of the Estate of Paul Michael Clayton, Deceased) [2009] EWCA Civ 237.
4. Apportionment. The collision was caused by the first defendant’s negligence, but the claimant was two-thirds to blame for his contributory negligence. The first defendant was therefore responsible for the remaining one-third.