STEPHEN PARRY v STEPHEN JOHNSON & Anor

A driver towing equipment wider than the vehicle owes a duty of care to pedestrians who may foreseeably be affected on adjacent verges and pavements. The duty extends beyond the carriageway where the equipment overhangs those areas. The driver must select a speed that allows a reasonable opportunity to see and avoid pedestrians, taking account of visibility, road width, hedges and the danger posed by the equipment. Available measures, including main-beam headlights, must be used where appropriate. A pedestrian who moves onto a verge to avoid an approaching vehicle is not contributorily negligent merely because the pedestrian does not remain in the carriageway to ensure that the driver has seen them.

The claimant, a pedestrian, was struck by an unlit seeding machine being towed by the first defendant’s tractor along a narrow lane. The equipment overhung the grass verge. The claimant alleged negligent driving, including excessive speed, inadequate lighting and failure to keep a proper lookout. The defendants denied negligence and alleged contributory negligence based on the claimant’s clothing, position and movements.

The trial concerned liability only. The court determined the visibility and conspicuity of the pedestrians, the defendant’s speed, lighting and lookout, and whether the claimant had failed to take reasonable care for his own safety.

1. Judgment for the claimant. The claim succeeded on liability and the allegation of contributory negligence was dismissed.
2. Drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles owe a duty of care to pedestrians on the road. Where a vehicle tows dangerous, unlit equipment wider than the vehicle, the duty extends to pedestrians on nearby pavements and grass verges who may foreseeably be affected by the overhang. The duty is therefore geographical as well as operational.
3. The appropriate speed depends on the circumstances. The driver had to travel slowly enough to have a reasonable opportunity to identify pedestrians on the verges and to brake or steer safely. The court found that 5 to 10 kilometres per hour was appropriate, whereas accelerating to 25 to 30 kilometres per hour was careless.
4. The driver also had to assess the twilight conditions, narrow lane and head-high hedges, and use available measures to improve visibility. Main-beam headlights should have been used because dipped beams illuminated the road but did not adequately illuminate the verges.
5. The pedestrians were visible and sufficiently conspicuous to a reasonably prudent driver. The driver failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to see them. The expert evidence supporting an elaborate theory that they had remained hidden in the bushes and stepped out only as the equipment passed was rejected.
6. The claimant acted reasonably by moving onto the verge to avoid the approaching tractor. Remaining in the carriageway until certain that the driver had seen him would have been dangerous. His movements on the uneven verge and his clothing did not amount to contributory negligence.
7. The court applied the guidance in Goad v Butcher 2011 EWCA Civ 158, Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801 and Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704, while recognising the need to avoid hindsight and over-reliance on expert minutiae.