Jessica Rose Gadsby v Julie Hayes (formerly Emms)
[2024] EWHC 2142 (KB)
Jacqueline Colizzi v Adam Coulson & Anor
29 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1956 (KB)
High Court
A pedestrian was hit by a car. The main question was whether the pedestrian stopped before crossing, giving the driver time to react. The judge decided the driver wasn't at fault because it was unclear if the pedestrian stopped long enough to be seen, and even if they did, it was impossible to say for sure whether the driver could have avoided the accident or reduced the severity of the injuries.
Key Facts
- •Road traffic accident on 9 November 2015.
- •Claimant (C), Jacqueline Colizzi, seriously injured after being hit by a car driven by First Defendant (D1).
- •Accident occurred on Myton Road, Warwickshire, at about 5.15 pm.
- •Speed limit was 30 mph, D1 was driving at 10-20 mph.
- •C crossed a road with heavy, slow-moving traffic.
- •C was wearing dark clothing.
- •Visibility was generally good, despite it being dark.
- •C's case: D1 failed to observe her and take evasive action.
- •D1's case: Accident caused by C's negligence; C failed to keep a proper lookout and use a nearby pedestrian crossing.
- •Disputed facts: Whether C stopped before entering the eastbound carriageway, where she stopped relative to other vehicles, and her conspicuity.
Legal Principles
A driver owes a duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing injury; reasonable care means the care an ordinarily skillful driver would have exercised.
Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (15th Edn) at [11-202]
Principles from Chan v Peters [2021] EWHC 2004 (QB) regarding liability and contributory negligence in road traffic accidents.
Chan v Peters [2021] EWHC 2004 (QB)
Drivers must always bear in mind that a car is potentially a dangerous weapon.
Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801
The apportionment of responsibility is inevitably a somewhat rough and ready exercise.
Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5
Caution against making findings of fact of unwarranted precision when not justified by the evidence.
Lambert v Clayton [2009] EWCA Civ 237
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found that D1 was not negligent. The evidence did not support the claimant's contention that she paused before entering the eastbound lane, and even if she had, the uncertainty about the duration and her conspicuity meant D1 did not have sufficient time to react. The court also found that the claimant’s secondary case (that her injuries would have been reduced at a slower speed) was based on speculation due to the complex and multi-factorial nature of the injuries sustained.