Lac and others v Clayton: CA 3 Feb 2009

Highway Code applied by analogy

The defendant contended that the three claimants had negligently contributed to the losses they suffered in a road traffic accident of which he admitted primary liability. There had been a spillage of oil, it was dark, the weather was poor, and the claimant passed the scene of an accident over the brow of a flyover to see another vehicle stopped. He stopped without collision, but his car part mounted the kerb. He decided to try to move it, but being upset as to the condition of his car walked back. At that point the defendant’s car came over the brow, hitting him and his passengers. The defendant said that they should not have gone back onto the carriageway and were in breach of the Highway Code. The judge had said that the three were upset, that the Highway Code did not apply save by analogy, and that it was not immediately obvious how they could comply, being on a flyover.
Held: While there might have been a safer place to stand, it was not immediately obvious, and the judge had been free to reach the conclusion he had. The appeal failed.

Mummery, Smith, Hughes LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 106
Road Traffic Act 1988 38(7)
England and Wales

Negligence, Road Traffic

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.301651