YYY & Anor v ZZZ

Negligence in a road-traffic accident must be assessed by the standard of the reasonably careful road user, without imposing a counsel of perfection or relying on hindsight. The fact that a collision would have been avoided had a defendant travelled more slowly does not, by itself, establish negligence. The question is whether the defendant’s actual conduct fell below the required standard and contributed to the collision. Where a motorcyclist identifies an uncertain hazard, the court must assess whether the steps taken were reasonable in the circumstances and in the limited time available. Expert calculations made after the event cannot replace that evaluative judgment.

The claimants sought a contribution from the defendant towards damages paid following a serious road accident. The first claimant had entered a layby and attempted a continuous U-turn across the carriageway. Her vehicle collided with the defendant’s motorcycle, which carried a pillion passenger. The first claimant’s negligence and greater responsibility were accepted, but the claimants alleged that the defendant was also negligent because he travelled too quickly, failed to maintain an adequate lookout, looked in his mirror, and failed to brake or take evasive action.

The central issue was whether the defendant’s riding fell below the standard reasonably expected of a motorcyclist carrying a pillion passenger and contributed to the accident.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimants failed to establish that the defendant’s riding fell below the standard of a reasonable motorcyclist or that he was liable to contribute to the settlement.
2. The applicable standard was reasonable care, not a counsel of perfection. The court had to avoid hindsight and the use of detailed accident reconstruction to impose an obligation resembling a guarantee of safety. The principles 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 supported that approach.
3. The fact that travelling at 40 mph would probably have avoided the collision did not establish that the defendant was negligent at approximately 50 mph. The court rejected reliance on the coincidence-of-location reasoning discussed in Whittle v Bennett (2006) EWCA Civ 1538. The relevant question was whether the defendant’s actual speed and riding contributed to the collision because they fell below the reasonable standard.
4. The defendant reasonably treated the claimant’s entry into the layby as a potential hazard, including the possibility that she might open her door or rejoin the carriageway. Moving towards the centre of the road and checking the mirror to ensure that following traffic did not create a further danger were reasonable responses. The evidence did not establish that the claimant’s manoeuvre gave a reasonable motorcyclist sufficient reason to anticipate an unannounced U-turn directly into his path.
5. The defendant was found to have braked shortly before impact. Even if he had not braked, or had accelerated briefly, that would not necessarily have amounted to negligence in the circumstances. No breach of duty or causative contribution was established.

First-instance decision. No prior or appellate decision was stated in the judgment.