FLR (A child by her mother and litigation friend MLR) v Dr Shanthi Chandran
[2023] EWHC 1671 (KB)
Jessica Rose Gadsby v Julie Hayes (formerly Emms)
19 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 2142 (KB)
High Court
A girl was hit by a car while crossing the road. Different people said different things about what happened. The judge decided the driver wasn't at fault because the girl ran out in front of the car unexpectedly when it had a green light, and the driver was going at a reasonable speed.
Key Facts
- •On 31 October 2014, the 12-year-old Claimant was struck by the Defendant's car while crossing a pedestrian crossing in Leicester.
- •The Claimant suffered serious injuries, including fractures to her left femur and wrist, and head injuries.
- •The trial concerned liability and contributory negligence.
- •Conflicting witness accounts existed regarding the accident's circumstances, including the Claimant's actions, the point of impact, and the traffic light status.
- •Expert evidence, including accident reconstruction and medical opinions, was presented by both sides.
- •The Claimant's sister, Kacie, provided a key witness statement, later found to contain inaccuracies.
- •The Defendant's initial statement to the police and later witness statements contained inconsistencies.
Legal Principles
A driver is liable in negligence if they fail to meet the standard of a reasonable and careful driver, and this failure caused the accident. The burden of proof rests with the Claimant.
Chan v Peters [2021] EWHC 2004 (QB)
The standard of care is that of a reasonably careful driver, considering the likely behaviour of pedestrians, especially children. Reasonable precautions must be taken for foreseeable risks; extraordinary precautions are not required for mere possibilities. Drivers are judged by the standard of a reasonable driver, not an ideal one, and without the benefit of hindsight.
AB v Main [2015] EWHC 3183 (QB); Moore v Pointer [1975] RTR; Foskett v Mistry [1984] 1 RTR 1; Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704
Drivers are deemed to know the principles of the Highway Code.
AB v Main [2015] EWHC 3183 (QB)
Caution should be exercised when interpreting accident reconstruction expert evidence, avoiding unwarranted precision and treating 'guesstimates' as secure findings.
Lambert v Clayton [2009] EWCA Civ 237; Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704
Compliance with speed limits and awareness of potential hazards are critical in negligence claims against drivers.
Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704
The defendant must show that even if they had been driving carefully at a non-negligent speed the claimant would have suffered the same injuries.
Phethean-Hubble v. Coles [2012] EWCA Civ. 349
Outcomes
The claim was dismissed.
The court found that the Defendant's driving did not fall below the standard of a reasonable and careful driver. The evidence favoured the accounts suggesting the Claimant stepped into the road suddenly, when the traffic light was green for traffic, and that the collision was unavoidable given the Defendant's speed and reaction time.