Jake Hammond (by his litigation friend Lesley Waller) v Jane Gibbon

A driver is not negligent merely because a collision occurs. The question is whether the driving fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver. Where a child emerges from behind a parked vehicle and is visible for only about one second, the court must assess the available reaction time in light of the child’s speed, size, visibility and angle from the driver’s line of sight. If the driver could not reasonably perceive and react to the hazard before impact, liability is not established.

The claimant, a child who suffered severe injuries in a road traffic accident in 2004, brought a negligence claim through his litigation friend. The defendant had been driving a Land Rover at no more than about 10 mph when the claimant ran from behind a parked car and was struck and then run over by the vehicle’s rear nearside wheel.

The central issue was whether the defendant had failed to keep a proper lookout and whether competent driving could have avoided the collision. The court considered conflicting lay evidence, accident-reconstruction evidence and expert evidence concerning perception reaction time.

1. Standard of care. The issue was whether the defendant’s driving fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver. The pleaded case concerned lookout, not excessive speed.
2. Factual findings. The claimant ran from behind a Passat parked half on and half off the footpath and immediately into the path of the Land Rover. He did not change course before impact. The rear nearside wheel caused the crush injuries; the front nearside wheel did not pass over him.
3. Opportunity to react. After clearing the Passat, the claimant had to travel approximately 3.2 metres before impact. At his likely minimum running speed, that took about one second. The defendant was travelling at approximately 10 mph and the agreed stopping distance at that speed was 2.2 metres.
4. Perception reaction time. The claimant was small, moving quickly and substantially obscured by the Land Rover. He would have appeared at an angle of at least 38 degrees from the driver’s forward sight line. The court found that the defendant’s perception reaction time would have been at least about two seconds, including the additional time attributable to the angle of eccentricity, and therefore exceeded the available opportunity to react.
5. Disposition. Nothing the defendant could have done would have prevented the collision or the claimant’s injuries. The defendant had not driven negligently. The claim was dismissed.