Claire Louise Rowbottom v The Estate of Peter Howard, deceased & Anor

A modest excess of the speed limit does not, without more, establish negligence or causation where it creates no foreseeable risk of harm and would not have altered the accident’s consequences. A driver who loses concentration and drifts onto the wrong side of a road, fails to see an approaching vehicle until the last moment, and makes no effective attempt to avoid a collision is negligent. A motorcyclist is not negligent for failing to move further from the centre line where the danger develops too quickly for meaningful evasive action and there is no established breach in riding near the line.

The claimant, a pillion passenger, sustained serious injuries in a head-on collision between a motorcycle ridden by Peter Howard and a car driven by David Teasdale. Howard died in the collision. The claimant brought claims against Howard’s estate and Teasdale. The trial concerned the preliminary issue of liability: whether the collision was caused by Howard, Teasdale, or both. The court assessed conflicting factual and accident-reconstruction evidence, including the position of the vehicles at impact, the effect of Howard’s speed, and whether either driver had a realistic opportunity to avoid the collision.

1. The claimant was blameless. The collision occurred in the southbound lane, with Howard’s motorcycle on its correct side of the road and close to the broken white line. The Vauxhall had drifted onto its incorrect side.
2. The physical evidence, including the tyre mark and the motorcycle’s oil trail, supported the conclusion that the car’s wheel remained broadly parallel to its direction of travel at impact. The wheel splayed only when the car struck and was dragged along the verge. The alternative hypothesis that the wheel turned through 90 degrees at impact was rejected.
3. Howard was not negligent. Although he was travelling slightly above the 60 mph speed limit, the excess speed created no foreseeable risk of harm to his passenger and would not have materially altered the impact, damage, or post-impact movement. Neither breach nor causation was proved in relation to speed.
4. Howard was not negligent in failing to move further towards his nearside. He had no reason to anticipate that the Vauxhall would continue drifting onto the wrong side of the road. Once the danger became apparent, there was insufficient perception and reaction time for a meaningful evasive manoeuvre.
5. Teasdale was negligent. He lost concentration, failed to appreciate that he was drifting across the road, did not see the motorcycle until the last moment, and made no effective attempt to avoid the collision. That prolonged lapse of concentration was a serious failure to exercise reasonable care and caused the claimant’s injuries.
6. The allegation that Teasdale was travelling too fast was rejected. His speed of about 50 mph was safe for the road. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant against Teasdale, with damages to be assessed. The claim against Howard’s estate was dismissed.