Bonsor v Bio Collectors Ltd

A driver of a large goods vehicle must take reasonable steps to address a known blind spot before turning across the path of pedestrians. In appropriate circumstances, that requires the driver to pause and check before completing the turn. Compliance with the ordinary standard of care is assessed without imposing a counsel of perfection, but competing demands on the driver do not justify driving through an area that cannot be seen where a reasonable check was available. A pedestrian who takes reasonable care in accordance with the Highway Code is not contributorily negligent merely because a vehicle approaching from behind was not heard or recognised as turning. A failure to fit optional safety equipment will not establish breach or causation without reliable evidence that it was reasonably required and would probably have avoided the accident.

The claimant was struck and seriously injured by a goods vehicle driven by the defendant’s employee as it turned left from Kensington High Street into Young Street. The defendant admitted vicarious liability. The issues were whether the driver was negligent in failing to observe the claimant, pause before turning, or indicate in sufficient time; whether the claimant was contributorily negligent; and whether the defendant was primarily negligent for failing to fit a Fresnel lens to the vehicle’s passenger-side window.

The claim was tried as a preliminary issue limited to liability and contributory negligence.

Judgment for the claimant on liability. The court found that the driver was negligent and that the claimant was not contributorily negligent.

1. A reasonably careful driver of the particular vehicle had to remain generally aware of pedestrians and take reasonable steps to ensure that nobody was within the blind spot created by the vehicle’s A pillar. The driver could not know whether a pedestrian had entered that blind spot.
2. The driver accelerated across the junction without pausing at or beyond the east-side white line. Given the known blind spot, the presence of pedestrians and the need to make further checks, a reasonably careful driver would have paused and, if necessary, altered his position to improve his view. The failure to do so breached Rule 170 of the Highway Code and the relevant provisions of the DSA Guidance. Had the driver paused, the claimant would probably have become visible and the collision would have been avoided.
3. The vehicle’s indicator lights were not illuminated until after the east-side white line. A reasonably careful driver would have indicated a reasonable distance before the junction. This was a breach, although no separate causation issue turned on it.
4. The claimant was likely to have looked towards traffic behind her and to have continued paying attention while crossing. The vehicle was not indicating and appeared to be travelling straight on. She was not wearing headphones, and the court rejected the allegation that she was negligent in failing to hear the vehicle. She could not reasonably have avoided the collision once the vehicle drew level with her.
5. The claimant failed to establish that omitting a Fresnel lens was a breach of duty. The available research concerned materially different vehicles, there was inadequate evidence about the lens’s placement and effectiveness on this vehicle, and causation was not proved. The Fresnel lens allegations were therefore rejected.

The claim succeeded on the liability trial. Judgment was entered for damages to be assessed, with directions for costs and an interim payment.