Conrad Hetherington v Anna Elizabeth Blythe

A driver is not negligent where her driving meets the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver and an unexpected collision leaves no sufficient time to react. Appropriate speed and road positioning must be assessed in the circumstances confronting the driver. Where the evidence establishes that the collision was unavoidable and the driver took reasonable steps to avoid or minimise it, liability is not established. Questions of contributory negligence do not arise where the defendant is not negligent.

The claimant, who lacked capacity following serious injuries, claimed damages from the defendant after he was struck by her car while crossing a road. The claim was tried on preliminary issues of liability and contributory negligence.

The court considered the point and mechanics of impact, the claimant’s speed, the defendant’s speed and road position, her opportunity to react, and whether she could have avoided the collision. The central issue was whether the defendant’s driving fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver.

1. Factual findings. The claimant collided with the front nearside wing of the defendant’s car while travelling at approximately 4.6 m/s, or just over 10 mph. The defendant was probably straddling the centre line and had steered away and braked when she became aware of the claimant.
2. Unavoidable collision. The experts agreed, on the findings made, that the collision was unavoidable. The defendant had very little time to react to the claimant’s unexpected presence in the road. Her braking and steering were reasonable attempts to avoid the collision or minimise its effects.
3. Negligence. The defendant’s speed was appropriate for the road conditions, was within the speed limit, and was consistent with traffic conditions. Her road position was sensible. Her driving was not below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver. She was therefore not negligent.
4. Contributory negligence. The issue did not arise because the defendant was not liable in negligence. The court nevertheless found that the claimant was solely responsible for the injuries because the defendant could have done no more to avoid the collision.
5. Disposition. The claim was dismissed. The court’s additional findings that the claimant was probably under the influence of drugs or alcohol and had been upset by an argument were not relied upon in reaching the conclusion on liability.