![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Wells v Trinder [2002] EWCA Civ 1030 (9 July 2002) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1030.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1030 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM LUTON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Simmons)
The Strand London Tuesday 9 July 2002 |
||
B e f o r e :
Vice
President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division
LORD JUSTICE MANCE
LORD JUSTICE LATHAM
____________________
TINA ![]() | Claimant/Respondent | |
and: | ||
MARK ![]() | Defendant/Appellant |
____________________
MR R HALSTEAD (instructed by Coleman-CTTS, 1-3 Union Street, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Tuesday 9 July 2002
"18) When I first noticed the car I would say I was only thirty yards or so away from the car. I did not reduce my speed on seeing the car or the pedestrians.
19) I assumed the car was not going to move as there was no indication from it and although I could not see the pedestrians I assumed they were still standing at the bus stop.
20) Almost at the same time of noticing the car on my left I heard someone outside and to my right shout something like 'No'. A split second later I saw a person running across the road in avery
dark coat from my right to left. The first time I saw this person was when my headlight picked them out. By this time they were right in the middle of my lane. I cannot recall in which direction the pedestrian was looking.
21) On seeing the pedestrian I immediately braked and began to turn myvehicle
into the opposite lane in an attempt to avoid hitting the pedestrian as the opposite lane was clear.
22) Unfortunately, I was unable to avoid the pedestrian who collided with the nearside front of myvehicle
before rolling over the top/side and landing in the road."
"[The Defendant] was moving certainly fast up towards [the Claimant] and was not aware of her presence. She had no chance to move back or do anything in my judgment. If one looks at the distances and speeds she would be travelling at a fast walk to getvery
nearly to the end of the 12 yards across the road. One can see that there is
very
little she could have done about it and it was only when her mother shouted the warning when the car was really upon her but too late to do then, that she was really aware of the Defendant, who I do find came out
very
fast upon her. In those circumstances this collision was the fault of the Defendant and not the Claimant .... I accept her evidence that she did look left and right. I do not therefore accept that she failed to make a proper check. She did not fail to heed the presence of the Defendant's car because it was not there until the last second really. Even at 60 miles an hour the Defendant would have covered 88 feet in one second, which means that he was quite some way down the road by the time she got almost to the edge of the bus layby. She did not fail to wait because he was not approaching when she started and she was not attempting to cross the road too quickly for the reasons that I have given on the facts."
"He was driving on dipped headlights. He says in his witness statement that the road was not particularly busy and there were intervals of several minutes betweenvehicles.
It seems to me that a prudent motorist driving along that dark road and even coming to the lit portion ought to have his full headlights on unless he is blinding other motorists coming the other way, and there is no evidence about that. Mr
Trinder,
as I say, says in his statement that there were not such motorists. In the witness box he had difficulty remembering any. But in my judgment he ought to have had his full beam headlights on in so far as it was safe to do that. Had he done that then I have no doubt he would have seen the Claimant somewhat earlier than he did."
"She did not fail to heed the presence of the Defendant's car because it was not there until the last second really."
"The Court of Appeal recognised that the trial judge's assessment ought not to bevaried
unless 'some error in the judge's approach is clearly discernible'. But they appear to have thought it impossible to differentiate when both parties had a clear
view
of each other for 200 yards prior to impact and neither did anything about it. I am unable to agree. There are two elements in an assessment of liability, causation and blameworthiness. I need not consider whether in such circumstances the causative factors must necessarily be equal, because in my
view
there is not even a presumption to that effect as regards blameworthiness.
A pedestrian has to look to both sides aswell
as forwards. He is going at perhaps three miles an hour and at that speed he is rarely a danger to anyone else. The motorist has not got to look sideways, though he may have to observe over a wide angle ahead: and if he is going at a considerable speed, he must not relax his observation, for the consequences may be disastrous."