0370 270 6000

Watson v Skuse, Court of Appeal

23 July 2001
The issues

Road Traffic Accident – Pedestrians – Pedestrian Crossing – “Foolish Claimant”

The facts

The Claimant had been drinking at a pub alongside a three-lane road. The near side land was closed and cordoned off. The Defendant was driving a lorry and was stationary at traffic lights where there was a Pelican Crossing for pedestrians. The crossing was marked with road studs. The Claimant began to cross the road checking only that the traffic light was red and not checking whether the pedestrian light was green. He did not walk between the studs provided and was close to the traffic. As the lights changed to green the Defendant checked his mirrors and set off not realising that the Claimant was directly in front of his lorry.

He knocked the Claimant over causing him serious injuries. In the Birmingham County Court the Claimant succeeded to the extent of 50%.

Both sides appealed.

The decision

The Judges findings were unclear and ambiguous. They would not be disturbed. The driver of a vehicle owed a duty of care to other road users including pedestrians and had to exercise a particularly high standard in respect of the young, the inform and “foolish people”.

Had the lorry driver looked to his left earlier, he would probably have seen the Claimant.

However, 50% was not appropriate. The accident was caused primarily because of the Claimant’s own folly. He had crossed at the wrong place and should have waited for the light to go green. The Court was particularly interested with the Claimant’s evidence to the effect that he felt it “unnecessary to start looking at pedestrian lights at the age of 49″. Accordingly apportionment of blame would be amended 80% in respect of the Claimant’s negligence and 20% in respect of the Defendant.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.

View

Blogs

Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.

View

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.

View

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up