Case news
Case news Email your opinions to
editorial@barkerbrooks.co.uk
Enter for your chance to win this May INNOVATION AWARDS➔
23 ??
Case news I
Parties equally to blame for collision on country road
n Bennett v Southwell [2013] EWHC 2382 (QB), the High Court apportioned liability for an accident on an unclassified country road passing through heavy Norfolk woodland.
Case details Olivia Bennett, the claimant, was driving along the road (which
was very familiar to her) in a VW Golf. Timothy Southwell, the defendant, was driving his Range Rover in the opposite direction. The national speed limit of 60 mph applied to the road. While there were no road markings in the centre of the carriageway or at its edges, the two vehicles had enough room to drive past each other safely if occupying their proper side of the carriageway. As the claimant approached a bend, she was unsettled by
the presence of a red Mazda and recalled it “zipping” past her “quite quickly”. The defendant’s Range Rover was behind the Mazda and its
offside had crossed over a notional central line of the carriageway. Although the claimant tried to brake, her VW Golf collided with the Range Rover and she was badly injured. Both parties agreed that at the moment of impact, the Range
Rover had completely regained its correct side of the carriageway and the VW Golf was mainly on the wrong side. They also agreed that the damage to the VW Golf was consistent with a collision speed of less than 40 mph. However, the defendant argued that there had been no reasonably foreseeable risk of an accident and the claimant was responsible because she drove into his path.
Te verdict The court rejected the defendant’s argument and ruled that he
should bear primary liability for the accident. According to the evidence, the defendant was occupying a significant part of the offside carriageway as he drove towards the bend and the claimant believed that there would be insufficient space for her to drive safely past him. Taking into account the nature of the road, the approaching
bend, the absence of road markings and an oncoming motorist’s possible reaction when faced with a vehicle on the wrong side, a collision would have been entirely foreseeable. At the same time, there was a large element of contributory
negligence on the claimant’s part. She had been driving at a safe speed and was on her proper
side of the carriageway as she entered the bend, but then became temporarily distracted by the Mazda (which was starting to accelerate and had a striking sports car appearance). While in ordinary circumstances the claimant would have driven around the bend without problems, she suddenly saw the defendant’s Range Rover on her side of the road ahead. This caused the claimant to panic, move onto the defendant’s
side of the road (to which he had by then returned) and collide with the Range Rover. Having weighed up the relevant factors, the court concluded that the parties would share equal responsibility for the accident. ●
Claims Magazine/Issue 11/ 21
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60