0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Russell v Smith, High Court, 30 July 2003

1 October 2003
The issues

Road traffic – children – cyclist – blame.

The facts

At the time of the accident, the Claimant who was 10∫ years of age cycled across the junction of Graham Road and Churchbury Road, Enfield. Graham Road was the minor road. As he emerged from Graham Road, he collided with a car driven by the First Defendant. The Claimant suffered serious and incapacitating head injuries. He remembered nothing and gave no evidence. A Contribution Notice was served on the Second Defendant who was the owner of a car parked at the junction obstructing the First Defendant’s view into Graham Road. Each party instructed Accident Reconstruction Experts who agreed that the probable speed of the First Defendant was 30 mph. The speed limit was 30 mph. As a fact, the Judge found that the First Defendant’s speed was not less than 27Ω mph at the point of impact. Expert evidence was also agreed on the speed of the Claimant, namely that it was in the region of just under 10 mph. The Judge therefore found that he did not stop or pause at the give way line, but came straight out in to the junction. The Second Defendant’s car was parked within 10 metres of the junction, contrary to paragraph 217 of the Highway Code. It was parked therefore in breach of the Second Defendant’s duty of care to other road users and caused a foreseeable hazard by obstructing views. It had not however been illegally parked. If the Second Defendant had not been so parked, the First Defendant’s braking time would have been extended to the extent that her speed at impact would have been reduced to less than 20 mph. However, the Judge was not satisfied that on the evidence that he could conclude that this diminution of speed would have avoided the Claimant’s particular head injury or that on the facts it would have altered the First Defendant’s reaction time significantly.

The decision

1.The position of the Second Defendant’s car was not causative of the accident. The claim against the Second Defendant would be dismissed.

2.Although the speed that the First Defendant was travelling at was within the speed limit, it was not safe in the circumstances. 20 mph was agreed as a speed at which with normal reaction time, a driver should have been able to stop if a similar emergency to that created by the Claimant occurred. The First Defendant’s excess over such speed was therefore negligent and causative of the accident.

3.Primary responsibility for the accident lay with the Claimant however to the extent of being three quarters responsible for the accident. However, the Claimant was a vulnerable road user. Children should be allowed to encounter risk and parents should not be discouraged from allowing them to do so. Cars were potentially lethal instruments. There was therefore a high duty on other road users to make allowance for the inexperience and lack of caution of children. It was therefore just and equitable having regard to the balance of blame, to reduce the Claimant’s damages by 50% only.

focus on...

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

Legal updates

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.

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