Jessica Rose Gadsby v Julie Hayes (formerly Emms)

A driver is negligent only if her driving falls below the standard of a reasonably careful driver and that failure causes the injury. The standard is assessed in the circumstances actually confronting the driver. It is not the standard of an ideal driver, and hindsight or mathematical precision from accident-reconstruction evidence must be avoided.

Where children are present near a crossing, reasonable care requires an appropriate lookout and reduced speed. It does not automatically require crawling speed or a heightened reaction capable of avoiding every child who suddenly enters on a green traffic signal. A mere possibility of danger does not require extraordinary precautions.

The claimant, aged 12, was struck by the defendant’s car while entering a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing. She suffered serious leg, wrist and head injuries. The claimant alleged that the defendant approached and crossed too quickly, failed to keep a proper lookout, and could have avoided the collision.

The defendant maintained that she was travelling at about 15–20 mph, that the traffic signal was green for vehicles, and that the claimant suddenly stepped into the crossing. The trial concerned liability, causation and contributory negligence.

1. Standard of care. The claimant bore the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant failed to meet the standard of a reasonably careful driver and that the failure caused the accident. The assessment had to reflect the actual circumstances, including the presence of children, the crossing, visibility and traffic signals.
2. The court applied the caution against judging a driver by the standard of an ideal driver or with hindsight. Expert evidence was useful to test the primary factual evidence, but it could not impose a fixed mathematical framework or findings of unwarranted precision.
3. The Highway Code required care and reduced speed near children and schools. It did not require a driver to proceed at 10 mph or less, or at crawling speed, whenever children were near a crossing. The defendant was required to maintain a lookout and reduce speed to 20 mph or less, but the evidence did not establish that reasonable care required reduction to 10 or 14 mph.
4. The court found that the defendant was travelling at about 20 mph and had reduced speed to 15–20 mph. The claimant suddenly entered from the nearside kerb when the vehicle was approximately 1.25 seconds away. The collision was unavoidable within the reaction time reasonably expected of a driver in those circumstances.
5. The claim was dismissed. No finding on contributory negligence was necessary. In the alternative, had negligence been established, the defendant had not proved that the same injuries would have occurred at every non-negligent speed up to 25 mph; at 10 mph or less the claimant would not have been lofted and would not have suffered the injuries sustained.