Radoslav Pashamov v Leon Taylor & Anor

A driver is negligent only where the claimant proves both a failure to meet the standard of a reasonably competent driver and causation. The standard must be judged in the actual circumstances, without hindsight or artificial precision. Expert evidence about reaction times and stopping distances assists the court but does not create a rigid mathematical framework.

An employer’s duty may continue after paid work ends where the employee is doing something reasonably incidental to the employment, including employer-directed transport or tasks benefiting fellow employees. An employer may be liable where it directs or expects an employee to cross a dangerous road instead of providing a safe collection arrangement. Contributory negligence must reflect the parties’ respective blameworthiness and control of the risk.

The claimant, an agricultural worker, was injured after leaving an employer-provided bus and crossing a 60 mph rural road to tell other workers that the bus had arrived. He claimed that the first defendant had driven negligently and that the second defendant, his employer, had breached its duty of care.

The first defendant denied negligence and alleged that the claimant’s conduct caused the collision. The employer argued that the claimant was no longer at work, that crossing the road was his own decision, and that the claimant was contributorily negligent. The trial concerned liability, including the driver’s visibility and opportunity to react, the scope of the employer’s duty after paid work, and apportionment of responsibility.

1. First defendant. The claimant had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the driver failed to meet the standard of a reasonably careful driver and that the failure caused the accident or materially reduced the injuries. The court had to assess the standard in the circumstances actually confronting the driver, taking account of the bus, pedestrians, traffic, shadow and visibility, while avoiding hindsight and unwarranted precision.
2. The driver should have been alert to the possibility that pedestrians might cross near the bus. However, the claimant was probably visible for less than the approximately two seconds during which he was crossing. A reasonably competent driver could take up to 1.5 seconds to react, followed by about 0.5 seconds before braking became fully effective. The claimant did not prove that earlier braking, swerving or sounding the horn would probably have avoided the collision or materially reduced the injuries. The claim against the first defendant therefore failed.
3. Second defendant. An employer’s duty may continue after paid work ends where the employee is engaged in an activity reasonably incidental to the employment. The claimant was carrying out an employer-directed or employer-expected task for the benefit of other employees and was travelling in employer-provided transport to employer-provided accommodation.
4. The employer’s risk assessment identified collection away from designated safe points as a high risk, including head injuries and fatalities. The bus was nevertheless stopped on the opposite side of a fast road, and no reasonable steps were taken to remove the obstruction or arrange collection at a safe point. The employer negligently exposed the claimant to a foreseeable risk and was liable for the resulting injury. It was also vicariously liable for any negligence of the bus driver in the course of employment.
5. The claimant accepted that failing to look to his left was negligent. His contributory negligence was assessed at 35%. The employer bore 65%, reflecting its greater control of the situation, its prior identification of the risk, and its failure to implement its own safety measures.