Shakespeare v Martin

A claimant alleging negligent driving must prove both that the defendant fell below the standard of a reasonably competent driver and that the breach caused or contributed to the accident. A driver emerging from a minor road across traffic with priority owes a high standard of care, requiring particular caution in busy or obstructed conditions. However, liability is not established merely because a collision occurs with a vehicle having priority. Where the emerging driver proceeds slowly, keeps a proper lookout and is stationary or barely moving at impact, the court may find that the collision was caused by the priority vehicle deviating from its course.

This was a liability-only trial arising from a collision between a motorcyclist overtaking queued traffic and a car emerging from a business park to turn right across the carriageway. The claimant suffered serious leg injuries and alleged that the defendant had driven into his path. The defendant contended that she had proceeded cautiously and that the claimant had moved from the centre of the road into the lane in which the collision occurred. The central issue was the position and movement of the vehicles immediately before impact, and whether the defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care.

1. The claimant bore the burden of proving that the defendant fell below the standard of care expected from a reasonably competent driver and that this caused or contributed to the accident.
2. A driver emerging from a minor road and crossing traffic with priority must exercise a high degree of care. The manoeuvre may require a very high level of caution where traffic is busy or visibility is poor or obstructed.
3. The court rejected the claimant’s account that the collision occurred at or near the centre line after the defendant had suddenly moved into his path. The photographic, video and expert evidence did not establish that the resting position of the motorcycle reliably demonstrated the point or angle of impact. The court preferred the defendant’s accident-reconstruction evidence on that issue.
4. The court found that the defendant proceeded slowly and cautiously, kept a proper lookout, and had reached approximately three quarters of the initial lane when the collision occurred. Her vehicle was stationary or barely moving at impact. The claimant had moved from the centre of the road into the lane and struck the angled front bumper of the car, causing the motorcycle to deviate and the claimant to become unseated.
5. On those findings, the defendant had exercised the degree of care reasonably expected in the circumstances. The accident was not caused by any lack of care on her part. The claim was dismissed.