Trevor Doughty v Lukasz Kazmierski
[2024] EWHC 1393 (KB)
Louise Jane Palmer v Russell Timms & Ors
9 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2292 (KB)
High Court
A lorry driver hit a motorcyclist who was passing him on the inside. The judge said the lorry driver was mostly to blame because he didn't look properly before moving. The motorcyclist was also partly to blame for squeezing through a small gap, so the motorcyclist's family got some, but not all, of their compensation.
Key Facts
- •On June 20, 2019, Simon Palmer died in a motorcycle accident involving a lorry driven by Russell Timms.
- •Mr. Palmer was undertaking the lorry when Mr. Timms moved the lorry left, causing the motorcycle to lose control and collide with a bollard.
- •CCTV footage, headcam footage, and lorry cameras recorded the events.
- •Damages were agreed, pending liability determination.
- •The claimant (Mr. Palmer's widow) alleged both deliberate obstruction ('primary case') and negligence ('alternative case') on Mr. Timms' part.
- •Mr. Timms claimed he moved left to make space for another motorcyclist overtaking on his right, and asserted contributory negligence by Mr. Palmer.
- •Expert evidence from both parties agreed on the factual sequence of events but differed on the interpretation of the cause of the accident.
Legal Principles
Assessment of a 'reasonable driver'
Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWCH 704 (QB)
Law relevant to liability in road accidents
Doughty v Kazmierski [2024] EWHC 1393 (KB)
Relevance of Highway Code breaches to liability
Various case law references in section 71
Drivers' assumptions about other road users' behavior
London Passenger Transport Board v Upson [1949] AC 155
Apportionment of liability in contributory negligence cases
Jackson v Murray [2015] 2 All ER 805
Causative potency and blameworthiness in apportionment
Various case law references in section 75
Contributory negligence principles in the context of road accidents
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Outcomes
Liability found for the defendant (Mr. Timms)
The judge found Mr. Timms negligent in moving his lorry left without checking if it was safe, despite evidence of undertaking being common in city driving. The judge rejected the defendant's explanation that the movement was a reaction to another motorcyclist overtaking.
Damages reduced by one-third due to contributory negligence.
Mr. Palmer's decision to undertake through a narrow gap, approaching a pedestrian crossing, contributed to the accident. However, the judge considered Mr. Timms's blameworthiness significantly greater due to his failure to check his mirrors and the destructive capacity of his vehicle.
Claimant's 'primary case' (deliberate obstruction) rejected.
The judge found Mr. Timms's account unreliable but did not find sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that he deliberately blocked Mr. Palmer's path.