The claimant, a 13 year old girl, was severely injured walking along the carriageway on a 60mph unlit road at 5:00pm on a December day. A hedgerow obliged her to walk in the road. The defendant driver said that she was contibutorily negligent in that it was dark and she was walking on the left hand side of the road and had not been wearing a high visibility jacket. The expert evidence suggested he had been driving at less than 45mph.
Held: She was not contributorily negligent: ‘an ordinary 13 year old should not be expected to consider taking the same level of precautions as an adult. It would be asking too much of her to say that she should not have started to walk home at all, waited for her mother or accepted lift, or should not have started to walk home without borrowing a high visibility jacket, reflective markings or torch from the stables. In my view those actions for a child of her age would have been a paragon of prudence.’
Judges:
Pittaway QC J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 2324 (QB)
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Gough v Thorne CA 1966
The court was asked as to the standard of duty of care expected of a child. Salmon LJ said: ‘The question as to whether the Plaintiff can be said to have been guilty of contributory negligence depends on whether any ordinary child of 13 can be . .
Cited – Powell v Phillips CA 1972
After a dance, the plaintiff, a girl of nineteen, was walking along the pavement of a poorly lit street at about 10.45 p.m. with an escort. The pavement was covered with snow and slush. From time to time, they had to step off it and walked in the . .
Cited – Toropdar v D QBD 20-Mar-2009
The claimant car driver sought a declaration that he was not responsible for an accident. He had been driving along when the 10 year old boy ran out into his path suffering catastrophic brain injury.
Held: ‘on the assumption that Mr Toropdar . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Personal Injury
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471193