A collision occurred between a motor car and a cyclist. The driver appealed a finding that he had been driving too quickly, and that that was a cause of the accident. The claimant had cut across a right hand corner of the narrow unmarked lane. The lane had high hedges. The cyclist was 60% to blame.
Held: The appeal failed. Rix LJ said: ‘So far as causation is concerned, I am similarly satisfied that it is impossible to say that the judge was wrong to conclude that the excessive speed was a cause of the collision. I accept [the] submission that, albeit, as the judge found, the motorist was properly keeping to his side of the road while taking this bend, nevertheless on such a road he had to be aware of the possibility of other users of the road who may be at risk if he drove too fast for those conditions. At a slower speed, alive to that danger, he could well have avoided a collision, even if he could not have stopped within the distance. It was for the judge to assess that matter: he assessed it as probable, and I cannot say he was wrong to do so.’
Judges:
Rix LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Longmore LJ
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 591
Links:
Statutes:
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Phethean-Hubble v Coles CA 21-Mar-2012
The claimant cyclist suffered serious injury in a collision with a car driven by the defendant. The defendant appealed against a finding that he was two thirds responsible. The case for the injured cyclist was that the motorist was going too fast. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic, Personal Injury
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197045
