Dursan v J Sainsbury Plc

In assessing whether an LGV driver was negligent when moving off in congested traffic, the court must consider the particular circumstances and the multiple sources of potential danger. There is no prescribed sequence for checking mirrors. A driver who makes a careful and conscientious sequence of checks, including the relevant blind-spot mirrors, is not necessarily required to repeat a check immediately before moving off where nothing has alerted the driver to a new danger. Liability also requires proof that reasonable further care would probably have avoided the accident. The mere possibility that a pedestrian might have been seen is insufficient where the pedestrian was difficult to detect and the relevant field of vision was entered only shortly before impact.

The claimant, the widow and dependant of the deceased, brought a fatal accident claim against his employer’s driver and employer. The deceased crossed a congested, dark and wet road between a stationary bus and the defendant’s LGV. The LGV moved forward after the driver had checked the vehicle’s mirrors, and collided with the deceased.

The central issues were whether the driver’s mirror-checking sequence was negligent, particularly because he did not make a final further check of the Class VI mirror, and whether such a check would probably have prevented the collision.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant failed to establish that the driver had acted without reasonable care.
2. The driver had conscientiously carried out the sequence of visual checks described in his evidence. There was no prescribed or recommended order for checking an LGV’s mirrors. The appropriate sequence depended on the circumstances and the sources of potential danger, subject to the considerations in the Highway Code and the Driving Standards Agency guidance.
3. The driver was not negligent in failing to re-check the Class VI mirror immediately before moving off. He had checked it only shortly beforehand, nothing had alerted him to a pedestrian close to the front of the vehicle, and the deceased entered its field of vision during the short intervening period. The situation was materially different from a vehicle turning across a road, where the principal danger may lie on one side.
4. In any event, causation was not established. Given the deceased’s dark clothing, the limited and elevated view through the convex Class VI mirror, the obstruction caused by the bus, and the brief period of visibility, even an alert driver might have found him difficult to detect. The fact that it was not impossible to see him did not prove that a further check would have enabled the driver to avoid the collision.
5. The deceased’s failure to use the nearby pedestrian crossing or otherwise make himself more conspicuous was relevant to the circumstances, but the claim failed because breach of duty and causation had not been proved.