L2A - Road Traffic Accidents Liability

Tort

Elements of a successful negligence claim

1. Duty of care

2. Breach

3. Causation

4. Loss and Damage

Duty of Care in RTA - Nance v British Columbia Electric Rly Co Ltd [1951]

All road users owe each other a duty to drive with due care

Duty of Care RTA - Stovin v Wise [1996]

No duty of care on the council for omission in not removing a feature limiting visibility

Duty of Care RTA - Sumner v Colborne [2018]

A land owner failing to cut back vegetation to prevent it obstructing visibility does not result in negligence.

Duty of Care RTA - Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004]

No duty of care on the council to secure that the highway was not dangerous to traffic.

Standard of Care RTA - Nettleship v Weston [1971]

Every user of the highway must reach the standards of the reasonably competent and careful experienced driver.

Criminal Standard RTA Road Traffic Act 1988, s.3

It is an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons.

Criminal Standard Section 3ZA RTA 1988

A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

Breach - Driving on the Left - Highway Code, rule 160

Once moving you should keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road.

• Driving on the wrong side of the road usually results in breach.

Rear end shunt - the person crashing into the back of another vehicle is usually to blame. they will probably have…

• driving too close to the vehicle in front (Highway Code rule 126)

• failing to keep a proper look-out (rule 146)

• driving too fast (rule 125)

• failing to brake safely or in time (rules 117 and 118)

rear end shunt - exceptions…

1. the car in front reversing into the car behind.

2. the car in front having defective brake lights (rule 89)

3. the car in front having cut in front of the car behind leaving too little room, and the braking (rule 163)

Changing Lanes - Without looking - Holdack v Bullock Bros (Electrical) Ltd (1965)

normally D would be 100% liable if he changed lanes without checking mirrors. in this case C was alerted D was about to pull over, so C should have hooted. D 70% liable and C 30% contributory negligence.

Changing Lanes - Without Looking - Palmer v Timms [2024]

lorry driver was negligent for not checking his nearside mirror when a motor cyclist was under taking. motorcyclist was 1/3 to blame in contributory negligence by riding into a narrow space and trusting the lorry would maintain its position on the road.

Changing Lanes - Cutting in while indicating - Hillman v Tompkins (1995)

motorcyclist overtook in dangerous circumstances so there was an increased standard of care on him, he should have seen the indicator, car driver should have checked their mirrors. C and D both 50% to blame.

Junctions and Speed - Slightly exceeding limit - Barna v Hudes Merchandising Corp [1962]

Excessive speed does not make a driver liable if this driver had not reason to think the road ahead would be blocked.

Junctions and Speed - Turning at junction - Grealis v Opuni [2003]

while exceeding a speed limit is negligent, doing so is capable of being evidence of negligence.

Cross Roads - Butters v JH Fenner & Co Ltd (1967)

D1 failed to see slow sign and drove over cross-road, D2 failed to pay attention to the junction. Crashed. Both drivers should have taken much more care by slowing down and observing. D1 was apportioned 75% of blame as they came from side road, 25% on D2.

What is the Highway Code?

official document issued with the Authority of Parliament. motorists and pedestrians must comply with its provisions.

the road traffic act 1988 s.38(7)

“A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.”

Highway Code Rule 170 starts by saying…

“take extra care at junctions”

highway code 167 includes…

“do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. for example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road.

Tocci v Hankard (No2) (1966)

Rule 167 does not now apply to many side roads in London. D could not be criticized for his action which was spur of the moment and caused by negligence of a third party.

Bingham v Fuller (1997)

C did a U-turn on an A road, D overtook 2 cars approaching C and collided with C’s car. Held that even though the U-turn was a breach of the Highway code it was not the cause of the accident. D was carelessly overtaking the cars in front of him and ignoring C doing the U-turn - 100% liability on D.

Factors Relevant to Breach

• Road Layout

• Legal requirements at the scene (speed limits, traffic signs, road markings)

• Traffic conditions

• Weather conditions

• The actions of relevant road users

• Health and physical characteristics of the drivers

• Physical characteristics of the vehicles.