FLR (A child by her mother and litigation friend MLR) v Dr Shanthi Chandran

A road-speed limit is an absolute maximum, not a target or assurance that driving at or below it is reasonable. Drivers must adjust speed and attention to the road layout, weather, darkness, pedestrians and, particularly, children. Breach of the Highway Code is relevant to negligence but is not determinative; cumulative departures may establish breach of duty.

Causation may be established by a grounded, approximate counterfactual analysis. The court should avoid unwarranted precision, but may draw safe inferences about how a pedestrian and driver would probably have reacted at a reasonable speed. Contributory negligence is assessed broadly by considering both causative potency and blameworthiness, with a just and equitable apportionment.

The claimant, aged 12, was seriously injured after stepping into the northbound carriageway at a controlled pedestrian crossing on a dark and rainy school morning. The defendant, driving at 28 mph in a 30 mph zone, struck the claimant. The claimant alleged that the defendant drove too fast for the conditions and failed to keep a proper lookout. The defendant denied breach and causation, and alleged that the claimant was wholly responsible.

The liability-only trial concerned the reasonable speed, breach of duty, causation, contributory negligence and apportionment. The central issue was whether driving at a reasonable speed and with proper attention would probably have avoided the collision.

1. Liability. Judgment was entered for the claimant, with damages to be assessed if not agreed, subject to 60 per cent liability on the defendant’s part.
2. The Highway Code required the defendant to treat 30 mph as an absolute maximum and to reduce speed for darkness, rain, standing water, two bus stops, a pedestrian crossing and the foreseeable presence of children. A reasonable competent and experienced driver would have driven at approximately 20 mph, within a margin of 1 mph. Driving at 28 mph was excessive, unsafe and unreasonable.
3. The defendant should have seen the claimant from about 30 metres away. She consciously failed to see the claimant and made no material adjustment to her driving. The cumulative departures from Rules 125, 146, 204, 205, 206 and 207 amounted to a breach of the duty of care. Breach of the Code was relevant but not determinative.
4. Causation was established on the balance of probabilities. At 20 mph, the vehicle would have been approximately seven metres farther away when the claimant entered the road. The greater distance would probably have prevented her from freezing, allowed her to continue across the carriageway, and enabled the defendant to brake or otherwise avoid her. The analysis was based on broad, safe inferences rather than micro-precision.
5. The claimant was also negligent in stepping into the road while the traffic light was green for vehicles. Under section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, the reduction had to be just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in responsibility. Applying a broad common-sense approach and considering causative potency and blameworthiness, responsibility was apportioned 60 per cent to the defendant and 40 per cent to the claimant.