Accidents/overtaking at junctions
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:13 am
Thought some of you might be interested in this article re- outcome of Court of Appeal case we have just had circulated. Seems a greater burden may be placed on overtaking motorcyclists in future !
Also interesting that "nose poking" is to be encouraged !!!! Yuck
FYI - On Lawtel Today
From: District Judge Stephen Gerlis, 14/5/2007
FARLEY v BUCKLEY (2007)
CA (Civ Div) (Pill LJ, Wall LJ, Maurice Kay LJ) 3/5/2007
NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY - ROAD TRAFFIC
FORESEEABILITY : REASONABLE CARE : RECKLESS DRIVING : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : NOSE POKING : ACCEPTABLE MANOEUVRES : LACK OF EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE
This case is more important than it might at first seem. The reason is that, as the Court of Appeal confirmed, many road accidents involve collisions between two vehicles, one emerging from a side road into a major road along which the other is travelling. For some years now the approach of the courts has seemed to be that, even where the emerging car "nose-pokes", i.e. slowly edges forward, he may still be 50 per cent liable for the accident which subsequently occurs. The present case puts a different spin on "nose-poking". It also deals with the common and dangerous practice of motor cycles overtaking lines of traffic. This all takes place in the light of the recent announcement that the new Highway Code is going to omit the word "accident" from its text and substitute the expression "collision". In road traffic there are no "accidents"!
The facts
The claimant was riding his motor scooter on a main road on which the speed limit was 30 mph. At the time he was overtaking a long refuse lorry which was indicating to turn left into a side road. The claimant was travelling at 30 mph. The lorry could not complete the manoeuvre until the defendant's car, which was in a side road to the left, had exited onto the main road. The refuse lorry slowed down to enable the defendant to emerge. The defendant had been intending to turn right. The defendant waited until there was a gap in the traffic in both directions and then drove in front of the refuse lorry. In doing so the defendant collided with the scooter being driven by the claimant, which was just completing its overtaking of the refuse lorry.
Other relevant facts were that the refuse lorry at the time of impact had been moving very slowly; that there were only a couple of feet between the offside of the lorry and the centre of the road; the motor scooter must have been virtually on or over the centre white line; that the defendant had stopped at the junction but was travelling at some 5-8 mph when it passed the front of the refuse lorry.
Should the defendant be 50 per cent liable for the accident, as was usual in such circumstances?
The view of the Court of Appeal
In reaching its decision the appellate court reached the following conclusions:
1. The defendant was travelling "slowly and cautiously" at the time of the collision.
2. The act of the claimant in trying to overtake the refuse lorry in the manner in which he did was reckless.
3. There was hardly any room between the offside of the refuse lorry and the centre line to enable the defendant to accurately estimate the amount he would have to "nose-poke".
4. The defendant had not in fact "nose-poked" but had moved in a continuous motion, albeit slowly.
Under the circumstances the appellate court upheld the decision of the judge in the court below that the defendant was not liable for the collision between the two vehicles. However, they did express a couple of caveats. Although emerging at 5-8 mph was reasonable in the context of the present case, in the great majority of cases that would not be an acceptable speed to emerge from a minor road. The court emphasised that the defendant had not in fact "nose-poked", which might have been preferable. Even then, "nose-poking", although often necessary, is not without risks. This includes the risk that the motor cyclist might swerve in a hazardous manner in order to avoid the emerging vehicle.
Practice points:
1. This case should enable practitioners to consider that the 50/50 liability split in such cases may not be the expected outcome. Of course each case will depend on its own facts.
2. The practice of motorcyclists overtaking a line of traffic or a long vehicle on the offside, especially at speed, is almost certain to place a much greater burden on them to be attentive to emerging traffic.
Also interesting that "nose poking" is to be encouraged !!!! Yuck
FYI - On Lawtel Today
From: District Judge Stephen Gerlis, 14/5/2007
FARLEY v BUCKLEY (2007)
CA (Civ Div) (Pill LJ, Wall LJ, Maurice Kay LJ) 3/5/2007
NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY - ROAD TRAFFIC
FORESEEABILITY : REASONABLE CARE : RECKLESS DRIVING : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : NOSE POKING : ACCEPTABLE MANOEUVRES : LACK OF EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE
This case is more important than it might at first seem. The reason is that, as the Court of Appeal confirmed, many road accidents involve collisions between two vehicles, one emerging from a side road into a major road along which the other is travelling. For some years now the approach of the courts has seemed to be that, even where the emerging car "nose-pokes", i.e. slowly edges forward, he may still be 50 per cent liable for the accident which subsequently occurs. The present case puts a different spin on "nose-poking". It also deals with the common and dangerous practice of motor cycles overtaking lines of traffic. This all takes place in the light of the recent announcement that the new Highway Code is going to omit the word "accident" from its text and substitute the expression "collision". In road traffic there are no "accidents"!
The facts
The claimant was riding his motor scooter on a main road on which the speed limit was 30 mph. At the time he was overtaking a long refuse lorry which was indicating to turn left into a side road. The claimant was travelling at 30 mph. The lorry could not complete the manoeuvre until the defendant's car, which was in a side road to the left, had exited onto the main road. The refuse lorry slowed down to enable the defendant to emerge. The defendant had been intending to turn right. The defendant waited until there was a gap in the traffic in both directions and then drove in front of the refuse lorry. In doing so the defendant collided with the scooter being driven by the claimant, which was just completing its overtaking of the refuse lorry.
Other relevant facts were that the refuse lorry at the time of impact had been moving very slowly; that there were only a couple of feet between the offside of the lorry and the centre of the road; the motor scooter must have been virtually on or over the centre white line; that the defendant had stopped at the junction but was travelling at some 5-8 mph when it passed the front of the refuse lorry.
Should the defendant be 50 per cent liable for the accident, as was usual in such circumstances?
The view of the Court of Appeal
In reaching its decision the appellate court reached the following conclusions:
1. The defendant was travelling "slowly and cautiously" at the time of the collision.
2. The act of the claimant in trying to overtake the refuse lorry in the manner in which he did was reckless.
3. There was hardly any room between the offside of the refuse lorry and the centre line to enable the defendant to accurately estimate the amount he would have to "nose-poke".
4. The defendant had not in fact "nose-poked" but had moved in a continuous motion, albeit slowly.
Under the circumstances the appellate court upheld the decision of the judge in the court below that the defendant was not liable for the collision between the two vehicles. However, they did express a couple of caveats. Although emerging at 5-8 mph was reasonable in the context of the present case, in the great majority of cases that would not be an acceptable speed to emerge from a minor road. The court emphasised that the defendant had not in fact "nose-poked", which might have been preferable. Even then, "nose-poking", although often necessary, is not without risks. This includes the risk that the motor cyclist might swerve in a hazardous manner in order to avoid the emerging vehicle.
Practice points:
1. This case should enable practitioners to consider that the 50/50 liability split in such cases may not be the expected outcome. Of course each case will depend on its own facts.
2. The practice of motorcyclists overtaking a line of traffic or a long vehicle on the offside, especially at speed, is almost certain to place a much greater burden on them to be attentive to emerging traffic.
If you know what i mean.Still no excuse for people pulling out on you with out THERE clear field of vision though.But then again,the legal profession have to make a living.Or is that killing, 
