The judgement of His Honour Judge Robinson of the High Court on 10 May 2024 in the personal injury case of RTP v Hardcrete provides a good illustration of how judges approach the issues of fault (driver error) and relative blameworthiness (of driver and pedestrian). The case involved the driver of a cement mixer lorry (Mr Pintilie) knocking down and seriously injuring an 84 year-old pedestrian who was trying to cross the road.
On 25 November 2020 the pedestrian was on his way to his doctor’s surgery. He was attempting to cross (initially walking and then at a jog) a slip road to the M3 at Sunbury Cross in London. As he did so, he sustained a very serious head injury when he was struck by the mixer lorry. The collision was captured on camera, which made it easier for the collision reconstruction experts and the judge to analyse exactly what happened.
In his judgement, His Honour Judge Robinson considered the question of how to determine a driver’s duty of care, essentially asking himself whether the pedestrian was clearly visible to drivers in the immediate vicinity, and whether a reasonably careful driver could have avoided hitting him.
In his evidence to the judge, the driver agreed that pedestrians waiting to cross the road were one of the potential hazards to which a driver should be alert. He also agreed that if the waiting pedestrian started to move, the driver should stop.
The judge held that the greater the speed and the larger the vehicle, the more important it is for a driver to be able to stop their vehicle quickly if required.
The judge decided (with the assistance of evidence from collision reconstruction experts) that if the driver had reacted promptly and braked as soon as he saw the pedestrian start to move, the collision would have been avoided.
Having decided that the driver was to blame, the judge then had to consider whether any deduction should be made to reduce the injured pedestrian’s compensation because of his own contributory fault in crossing the road without keeping a proper look out. In this case, the judge followed the approach of a 2003 Court of Appeal judgement that held it was rare for a pedestrian to be found more responsible than a driver unless the pedestrian had suddenly moved into the path of an oncoming vehicle, which was not the case in this instance.
However, His Honour Judge Robinson found that the pedestrian did not look for traffic to the best of his ability and thus was at fault himself to the extent of 40 per cent. Accordingly he ruled that the pedestrian’s compensation award should reflect this, awarding him 60 per cent of the amount he would otherwise have been awarded in respect of his injuries and other losses sustained as a result of the accident.
Motor vehicles in particular can be dangerous ‘weapons’ and pedestrians are recognised by the law, including the Highway Code, as vulnerable road users. This case stands as a reminder to us all to look out for each other, take care on the roads, and drive sensibly and cautiously.
Paul Fretwell. Partner & Head of Personal Injury
Contact Our Friendly Legal Experts Today
For general enquiries or to discuss more specific needs in personal or commercial law please get in touch with a friendly member of our team today.
Latest News
21st November 2024
What is a Personal Injury Trust?
13th November 2024
How Long Does a Personal Injury Claim Take to Settle?
1st November 2024
All You Need to Know About LPA (Lasting Power of Attorney)
30th October 2024
Common Personal Injury Claim Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
27th June 2024
Witnessing Traumatic Events: Secondary Victims
Our Offices
Author: Paul Fretwell
Last updated: 1721203933
