Per HHJ Freedman, Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Registry, 24 July 2024

Case Summary:

The Claimant was a 7-year-old child involved in a road traffic accident that occurred in September 2021. The incident took place at the junction of 2 roads in Newcastle Upon Tyne, involving a large goods vehicle (LGV) driven by the First Defendant (employed by the Second Defendants). The accident resulted in severe injuries to the Claimant, including multiple fractures and degloving injuries to both legs, which necessitated extensive medical treatment and impacted her mobility.

The accident occurred when the Claimant, accompanied by her friend and friend’s mother attempted to cross the road at the end of a school day.  As the Claimant and her friend did so, the Claimant collided with the nearside of the LGV, resulting in the vehicle's wheel running over her legs. The court was asked to determine liability only and so whether the Defendant's driving fell below the standard of a reasonably competent and careful professional driver, and if so, whether this caused the accident. Additionally, the court considered the possibility of contributory negligence on the part of the Claimant, unusually given her young age.

Claimant's Arguments:

The Claimant argued that the accident was avoidable and resulted from the Defendant's failure to exercise ‘meticulous care’ while driving. The Claimant highlighted the Defendant's past driving breaches, including a driving ban for drug use and a recent careless driving offence, suggesting a pattern of negligence. The Claimant's case emphasised that the Defendant was driving a large vehicle in a school zone with many pedestrians in the area, which necessitated heightened caution.

The Claimant argued that the Defendant failed to see the Claimant and her companions waiting to cross the road, despite their visibility for several seconds. The Claimant contended that a reasonably prudent driver would have stopped or significantly reduced speed to assess the situation before executing the left turn. The Claimant also pointed to the Highway Code, which advises drivers to take extra care at junctions and give way to pedestrians, arguing that the Defendant's failure to do so constituted negligence.

Defendant's Arguments:

The Defendant contended that the accident was unavoidable and that the Defendant had exercised reasonable care while driving.  It was argued that the Defendant was conducting appropriate three-point checks during the manoeuvre and that his attention was reasonably directed towards pedestrians on the opposite side of the road. The Defendant maintained that he did not see the Claimant and her companions due to a parked vehicle potentially obstructing his view.

The Defendant further argued that it was not foreseeable that the Claimant would step into the road, and so it followed, there was no obligation for the Defendant to stop his vehicle. The Defendant also contended that the speed at which he was driving was reasonable under the circumstances and that the accident could not have been avoided even if the vehicle had been traveling at a slower speed.

Court's Findings:

HHJ Freedman found that the Defendant's driving did not fall below the standard of a reasonably competent and careful professional driver. The court noted that the eyewitnesses did not perceive the LGV as being driven too fast and that the Defendant was conducting appropriate checks during the manoeuvre. The court also found that the Claimant and her companion ran (rather than walked) into the road, making it unlikely that the Defendant could have avoided the accident in any event.

The court concluded that there was no obligation for the Defendant to stop the vehicle at the junction, as it was not foreseeable that the Claimant would step/ jog into the road. The court also determined that the speed at which the Defendant was driving was reasonable and that the accident could not have been avoided even at a slower speed. Had liability been established, the court would have dismissed the claim of contributory negligence, acknowledging the Claimant's young age and limited understanding of road safety.

Conclusions:

The assessment of the standard of care required of drivers is always fact specific.  This case considered the circumstances where there was high pedestrian activity at the end of a school day.  The court's finding highlights the additional considerations in accidents involving young children and acknowledged the need for drivers to exercise heightened caution in such circumstances.

For practitioners, the case reinforces the significance of eyewitness evidence and expert evidence in determining liability. The Judgment also serves as a reminder of the unlikeness of a finding of contributory negligence, when dealing with such young claimants.

The full Judgment can be found here.