Trevor Doughty v Lukasz Kazmierski

A driver must use the care of an ordinarily skilful driver, assessed against the actual road, traffic and visibility conditions. Compliance with the speed limit does not itself establish reasonable care. In stop-start traffic, drivers must adapt their speed and maintain a sufficient gap to deal with foreseeable sudden slowing, stationary traffic and collisions ahead.

Contributory negligence requires a finding that the claimant’s fault contributed to the damage. The reduction must be just and equitable, having regard to both relative blameworthiness and the causative potency of each party’s conduct. Precise scientific apportionment is unnecessary where the evidence contains substantial uncertainty.

The claimant suffered tetraplegic injuries when his motorcycle collided with the rear of the defendant’s Vauxhall Zafira on the A40. The defendant’s Zafira had first collided with a Volkswagen Polo in heavy, stop-start traffic. The trial was confined to liability.

The court had to determine the sequence of the collisions, whether the defendant drove negligently, whether his negligence caused or contributed to the claimant’s injuries, and whether the claimant was contributorily negligent. The parties relied substantially on factual evidence and accident reconstruction experts.

1. Primary liability. The court accepted the evidence of the independent witness and the experts’ agreement that the Zafira first collided with the Polo. The defendant’s contrary account was rejected. He had been driving too quickly for the stop-start conditions and/or too close to the vehicle ahead. He therefore failed to comply with Rules 126 and 146 of the Highway Code and fell below the standard of a reasonably careful driver.
2. Causation. The collision with the Polo materially shortened the stopping distance available to the claimant. The claimant could not stop safely within that reduced distance and collided with the Zafira. The defendant’s negligence thereby caused or contributed to the claimant’s life-changing injuries.
3. Contributory negligence. The claimant was also negligent. In heavy stop-start traffic, it was foreseeable that vehicles might slow or stop unexpectedly and that collisions could occur ahead. A careful motorcyclist should reduce speed and increase the gap beyond the minimum two-second guidance where appropriate. The claimant was travelling too close and/or too fast for the conditions.
4. Apportionment. Under section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, the court considered relative blameworthiness and causative potency. The defendant’s negligence had considerably greater causative potency and blameworthiness. The claimant’s damages were therefore reduced by 25%, rather than the 50% sought by the defendant.
5. The court declined to resolve the competing detailed accident-reconstruction theories where the physical evidence did not permit reliable findings. Primary factual evidence was of greatest importance, with expert evidence serving as a helpful check.

There was judgment for the claimant on liability, subject to the 25% reduction for contributory negligence.