Vincent v Walker & Anor

A driver must take reasonable care, judged by the standard of the reasonably careful driver. The standard is not that of an ideal driver and does not impose a guarantee of pedestrian safety through hindsight or fine considerations developed at trial. Drivers approaching pedestrian crossings in urban conditions must pay particular attention to the crossing and adjust their observation to darkness and other hazards. However, a driver may ordinarily rely on an adult pedestrian using the crossing correctly, unless the circumstances give reasonable cause to anticipate a dangerous movement. Whether speed or observation was negligent remains fact-sensitive.

The claimant was struck while crossing an A-road at a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing. He had crossed one carriageway and the central refuge before walking into the other carriageway without looking. The first defendant accepted that he was driving at about 39–41 mph in a 50 mph limit, but disputed that he was speeding or had failed to keep a proper lookout.

The court considered the accident-reconstruction evidence, the visibility of a pedestrian wearing dark clothing at night, the Highway Code, and the parties’ respective responsibility if negligence were established. The central issues were whether the defendant’s speed was excessive and whether he had failed adequately to scan the road approaching the crossing.

1. Claim dismissed. The defendant was not negligent in either respect alleged.
2. The applicable standard was that of the reasonably careful driver. The court rejected a counsel of perfection and the use of hindsight. A driver’s duty is one of reasonable care, not an absolute guarantee of pedestrian safety. This approach was reflected in Ahanonu v South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 274, Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704 (QB) and Birch v Paulson [2012] EWCA Civ 487.
3. On the evidence, the defendant was probably travelling at 39–41 mph when he first saw the claimant, with an impact speed of about 30 mph. That speed was not excessive in the circumstances. The road was a 50 mph urban ring road bordered by housing on one side and fields on the other, and the defendant had probably eased off the accelerator approaching the crossing.
4. Drivers approaching pedestrian crossings must pay particular attention, especially in darkness. Nevertheless, the claimant’s dark clothing and lateral movement across the central refuge meant that he was unlikely to have been detected before entering the eastern carriageway. Even if he had been seen on the refuge, a reasonably prudent driver could rely on an adult pedestrian obeying the signals or checking that the carriageway was clear. The accident could not reasonably have been avoided.
5. Alternatively, if negligence had been established, the claimant bore two-thirds responsibility. He ignored the automated signals and stepped into the carriageway without looking, head down. The approach was consistent with the principles concerning causative potency and blameworthiness discussed in Sabir v Osei-Kwabena [2015] EWCA Civ 1213.

The claim was accordingly dismissed.