A school sergeant attempted to stop a vehicle which had been fly-tipping on private school land from leaving the land by standing in front of it. When the lorry moved toward him, the driver being determined to leave, he was forced to jump to one side. The front wing of the lorry caught him as he did so, causing no substantial injury, but he was then trapped between the moving lorry as it left the private premises and the escarpment of a raised bank to the side of the entrance. He was pulled forward as the lorry passed him, eventually falling to the ground with his head and shoulders inside the boundary of the school property and his legs outstretched, although he did not remember in which direction. A rear wheel of the lorry passed over his leg, fracturing it. At the time the rear wheel passed over his leg the front wheels of the lorry were already well out onto the public road beyond and the driver had started to turn the lorry into his direction of travel. The only question was whether the bodily injury was caused by or arose out of the use of the lorry on a road. The statutory question was whether the injuries were caused by or arose out of the use of a vehicle on a road within sections 203(3)(a) and 257 of the Road Traffic Act 1960.
Held: Megaw J said: ‘In my judgment the answer to that question on the facts of this case is ‘yes’. I have no doubt that in common sense and in the ordinary use of language the lorry was being used on a road . . at the time when the plaintiff sustained the serious injury of which he complains. If anything turns on the precise time of the incident, which again as a matter of common sense cannot be divided into a series of separate incidents, the determining factor is the time when the wheel of the lorry ran over the plaintiff’s leg. At that time the greater part of the lorry was on the road and the lorry as a whole was using the road. The fact that the rear part of the lorry, including the wheel which ran over the plaintiff’s leg, was still just on private property does not, in my view, affect the conclusion that the lorry was then using the road. It was the use of the lorry on the road, the fact that it was being driven further onto the road in order to drive away along the road, which caused the injury. Certainly the injury arose out of the use of the lorry on the road. The fact that the plaintiff when he was injured was still, though only just, on private property and that the wheel which caused the injury was still just on private property, does not, to my mind, affect the conclusion. The plaintiff therefore succeeds in his claim.’
Judges:
Megaw J
Citations:
[1968] 1 WLR 1190
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Avery v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 28-Jul-2011
The defendant had parked his care on a driveway. He left to go drinking. On his return, a neighbour had parked across the foot of the drive obstructing all but pedestrian access. The defendant reversed his car within the driveway but so as to damage . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic, Personal Injury
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.444943
