Louise Jane Palmer v Russell Timms & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2292 (KB)
Aaron John MacDonald v Amlin Corporate Member Limited
1 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 526 (KB)
High Court
A scooter rider crashed into a lorry that had stopped unexpectedly in a tunnel. The lorry driver was mostly to blame for stopping where he shouldn't have, but the scooter rider was also partly to blame for not checking if it was safe to change lanes before doing so.
Key Facts
- •Road traffic accident in Limehouse Link tunnel on 23 February 2018.
- •Claimant (scooter rider) collided with rear of stationary lorry driven by Mr Chilvers.
- •Claimant sustained spinal and severe traumatic brain injury; has no memory of the accident.
- •Mr Chilvers died before trial; evidence from police statement and CCTV.
- •CCTV shows Mr Chilvers stopped in slip lane to investigate a noise from his lorry.
- •Claimant moved from outer lane into slip lane, colliding with lorry.
- •Liability denied by defendant (Mr Chilvers' insurers); preliminary issue trial.
- •Tunnel is a red route clearway; stopping is prohibited unless to avoid a collision.
- •Expert collision investigators gave evidence, with disagreements on speed, perception/reaction times, and interpretation of CCTV.
- •Disagreement on whether Mr Chilvers' stopping was justified and whether the Claimant was contributorily negligent.
Legal Principles
A driver must take reasonable care to avoid creating a dangerous obstruction.
Various case laws cited (e.g., Dymond v Pearce, Rouse v Squires, Lee v Lever, etc.)
A driver is expected to anticipate carelessness by other road users but not gross negligence.
Howells v Trefigin Oil and Trefigin Quarries Ltd, Lee v Lever
If both drivers are negligent, liability is apportioned based on blameworthiness and potency of negligence.
Rouse v Squires
The claimant must prove the defendant's negligence; in cases of dangerous obstruction, the defendant may need to justify their actions.
Lee v Lever, Hill-Venning v Beszant
Apportionment of liability under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 considers claimant's share in responsibility for the damage.
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s.1(1); Tompkins v Royal Mail Group Plc
Outcomes
Mr Chilvers was negligent in stopping his lorry, creating a dangerous and unjustified obstruction.
The obstruction was dangerous due to its location (slip lane in a tunnel, clearway) and visibility issues despite flashing lights. Stopping was unjustified as there was no sufficient objective evidence of an emergency.
The claimant was contributorily negligent but not grossly negligent.
The claimant failed to ensure it was safe to change lanes and enter the slip lane before doing so. His reaction time once the lorry was visible was reasonable.
Liability apportioned 60/40 in favour of the claimant.
Mr Chilvers bore greater blame for creating the dangerous obstruction. The claimant's negligence was a failure to fully consider the possibility of a stationary vehicle, not gross negligence.