Lenord v First Manchester Ltd

An appellate court reviewing an evaluative decision on breach of duty and causation must not conduct a fresh assessment merely because it has the same video evidence as the trial judge. The question is whether the decision was wrong, or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. Interference requires an identifiable flaw such as a gap in logic, inconsistency, or failure to take account of a material factor undermining the conclusion.

A bus driver undertaking a manoeuvre towards a junction must maintain a proper lookout for pedestrians and cannot focus exclusively on an oncoming vehicle where that creates a foreseeable hazard. Where the driver’s breach and the evidence establish that an accident could have been avoided, causation may be proved without expert accident-reconstruction evidence.

The claimant was injured when he walked into the path of the defendant’s bus at the mouth of a junction. Following a trial on liability only, Mr Recorder Lazarus found that the bus driver had breached his duty of care by failing to look forward and to his left while manoeuvring around an oncoming bus. He also found that the breach caused the accident, subject to contributory negligence, and entered judgment for the claimant for two thirds of the claim’s value.

The defendant appealed to the High Court. The central issues were whether the Recorder’s evaluative findings on breach of duty and causation were wrong, particularly in light of the CCTV evidence and the short interval before collision.

1. Nature of the appeal. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 52.21, the appeal was by way of review. The appellate court was not to rehear the case or substitute its own evaluation simply because it had access to the same CCTV footage. It had to determine whether the Recorder’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. The caution applicable to evaluative decisions remained relevant even where the evidence was largely visual. The appellate court could interfere only where there was an identifiable flaw, such as a gap in logic, inconsistency, or failure to take account of a material factor undermining the conclusion. The case also involved the bus driver’s evidence, which gave the Recorder an evaluative advantage.
3. Breach of duty. The Recorder was entitled to find that the driver breached his duty by keeping his gaze fixed exclusively on the oncoming bus for six or seven seconds while moving towards the junction. The manoeuvre brought the bus close to pedestrians crossing the junction. The driver should have intermittently looked forward and to his left. A warning against applying a counsel of perfection did not justify disregarding pedestrians altogether.
4. Causation. The finding that the breach caused the accident was open to the Recorder. The relevant period was not limited to the final two seconds after the claimant changed direction. The claimant was already a real hazard while the bus was being manoeuvred towards the junction. The bus was travelling very slowly, the driver had his foot on the brake, and the evidence showed that a proper lookout would have given him sufficient time to stop. It was not fatal that the driver had not been asked hypothetically whether the accident could have been avoided.
5. The Recorder’s findings were logically coherent, consistent, and supported by the evidence. The defendant had not shown that they were wrong or procedurally unjust. The appeal was dismissed. The finding of liability, subject to the unchallenged apportionment for contributory negligence, remained in force.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): appeal from the decision of Mr Recorder Lazarus in the Manchester County Court dismissed. The Recorder’s findings on breach of duty and causation were upheld.