HRA v KGC

A driver confronted with a developing danger must respond as a reasonably careful driver would. Where the driver has failed to keep an adequate lookout, the fact that events developed quickly does not excuse a deliberate and disastrously wrong manoeuvre. The appropriate response may require timely braking and steering to a safe position. Liability may be established on the balance of probabilities by drawing together the road evidence, witness evidence, accident reconstruction and evidence of distraction. A driver’s use of a mobile telephone shortly before an accident may provide the most likely explanation for failing to observe and respond to traffic ahead.

The claimant sought damages from his mother for catastrophic injuries sustained when he was a passenger in her vehicle. The accident occurred on a wet road in darkness after an unidentified vehicle, overtaking an oncoming lorry, collided with another vehicle and caused debris to enter the roadway.

The defendant drove across the opposite carriageway and through a fence before colliding with a freight train. She contended that she had faced a sudden emergency and that it would be a counsel of perfection to criticise her response. The central issue was whether her driving fell below the standard of a reasonably competent driver.

1. Liability. Judgment was given for the claimant on liability. The burden of proof rested on the claimant, and the case was not one of res ipsa loquitur.
2. The court rejected the suggestion that the defendant had lost control or had necessarily driven onto the grass verge before steering right. The evidence indicated that her course was the result of a deliberate decision, rather than loss of control.
3. A reasonably careful driver would have seen the developing events and responded by steering left and applying the brakes, thereby avoiding the collision or loss of control. The defendant had not been paying adequate attention to the road ahead and became aware of the danger only after the vehicle in front had moved substantially left.
4. The absence of braking, the defendant’s account that the vehicle in front had suddenly disappeared, and the unusual course taken across the opposite carriageway supported that conclusion. The court also found that the defendant’s mobile telephone was the likeliest explanation for her failure to keep a proper lookout. A sequence of text exchanges immediately before the accident, together with her lack of candour and failure to provide her PIN, made the inference compelling.
5. The issue of liability was resolved in the claimant’s favour. The claim would proceed to assessment of quantum.