Over the past couple of years, there have been a number of cases where the motorist has been held at least partly liable for injuries caused as a result if hitting a pedestrian, even though the pedestrian in the majority of cases contributed significantly to the cause of those injuries. This has always been an issue as quite rightly so, many people have questioned why they as a motorists should be held liable when in 99% of cases pedestrians are the authors of their own misfirtune. Well one such case has just been to the court of appeal where the original judge threw the claim of the pedetrian out, but who then subsequently appealed. A judge had been entitled to find that a motorist was not responsible for a road traffic accident in which a pedestrian had suffered serious injury after stepping into the road in front of her car. His conclusion that a reasonable driver could not have foreseen that the pedestrian would have attempted to cross the road when he had, and that the motorist had exercised reasonable care was, on the basis of his primary findings of fact and reasoning, entirely justified. The appellant (B) appealed against a decision ([2011] EWHC 1614 (QB)) that the respondent (P) was not responsible for a road traffic accident in which he had sustained personal injury. B had been struck by a car driven by P as he attempted to cross an A-road. He suffered serious injuries and claimed substantial damages from P. P did not give oral evidence, but her witness statement indicated that she had seen B when about 300m from him, and noticed that he was looking at her vehicle. An eye-witness (X) gave evidence that she had noticed B and his friend as they were weaving from side-to-side as they walked and appeared to be drunk, and perhaps arguing. She had watched B cross over a grass verge to the edge of the road, rock backwards and forwards on the kerb and turn his head to shout at his friend, for around 15 seconds before stepping out in front of P's vehicle. The judge found that P had been travelling at 40 mph, which was entirely appropriate as the speed limit was 50 mph, and that she had seen B looking in her direction but making no attempt to cross the road. He considered the relevant question was whether a reasonably careful driver in P's position would have considered there to have been a sufficient risk that B might suddenly step into the road in front of her so as to make it necessary, as a precautionary measure, to have reduced her speed or steered to the centre of the road to give herself more time and space to react. The judge concluded that the risk of B crossing the road when he had was extremely remote, since a reasonable driver in P's position would not have considered him to have been acting in a way which suggested that he was intoxicated or otherwise likely to act irrationally. He therefore dismissed B's claim. B contended that the judge's overall conclusion on the facts as he had found them was simply wrong. He submitted that the judge should have found that once P had seen B on the edge of the kerb, perhaps rocking and turning to shout at his friend, P should have appreciated that there was a risk of something untoward happening and either slowed or steered to the centre of the road, which would have prevented or lessened the effect of the collision. P argued that the judge's principal findings were unimpeachable, as were his conclusions based on those findings. HELD: The judge had undoubtedly reached a conclusion that was properly open to him, having regard to his primary findings of fact and his reasoning, which was clearly set out and entirely proper. B's criticisms were based on the premise that P, in her car, should have seen what X had and been as concerned for him as X was. However, X was in a different position. The judge had expressly found that P had no reason to think that B would or might behave as he had when her car was clearly visible to him. The judge's findings and his conclusion were entirely justified and could not be faulted. Whilst B had contended that it would have been easy for P to have slowed down or steered into the centre of the road, the legal test was not whether an action was easy for a driver, but one of reasonableness. A driver was not required to give an absolute guarantee of safety to a pedestrian, and there was nothing to show that P had not exercised reasonable care. In those circumstances, there was no reason to interfere with the judgment. Appeal dismissed Maybe now some of these drunk pedetrians will look at their own actions rather than try to apportion blame on the poor unsuspecting motorists
