0370 270 6000

James v Fairly, Court of Appeal, 27 February 2002

27 February 2002
The issues

RTA – child – causation – contributory negligence.

The facts

The Claimant was 8 at the time of her accident when she was seriously injured as she crossed a road. The road was an A road with two lanes going North and one going South. The accident happened in early evening. Street lighting was on. The point of impact was 4 metres from the kerb. Expert evidence was to the effect that it would have taken the child 1.97 seconds to walk at ordinary pace. The driver said he had had only a very brief glimpse of something in front of the car and he braked as an automatic reaction. The Claimant did not give evidence.

The Court of Appeal was struck by “a stark paucity of evidence”. As she crossed the first North bound lane, she was hit by the Defendant’s car which was travelling at 30 mph. The Judge found as a fact that the driver could not have been expected to have seen the Claimant until he was right on her and that even if he had seen her as she stepped off the pavement, he would still have been unable to avoid the collision. He further found that if he had found that the driver had been negligent that he would have gone on to have found that the Claimant was 60% to blame herself. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. There had been no evidence that the child had been doing anything unusual on the pavement which might have caused a careful driver to brake beforehand. The Court referred to Moore -v- Poyner with approval accepting Buckley LJ’s Judgment as to the appropriate test in these circumstances, namely “would it have been apparent to a reasonable man, armed with the common sense and experience of the way pedestrians, particularly children, are likely to behave in the circumstances, such as were known to the Defendant to exist%u2026 that there was a possibility of a danger emerging, to avoid which he should slow down or sound his horn or both. There was no error in the Judge’s reasoning on the evidence.

2. Although the Judge’s finding on contributory negligence was surprising, it could not affect the Judgment as a whole.

Appeal dismissed.

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