Negligence claim by pedestrian, who was run over following road rage incident, dismissed.

S v F was an unusual pedestrian versus car road traffic accident claim. Jamie Hill successfully represented the Defendant on instructions from DAC Beachcroft.

The material facts, as the Circuit Judge found them to be, were as follows:

• The Defendant was in her car with her son and his girlfriend.
• Prior to the occupants getting into the Defendant’s car, there had been an altercation between the son and his girlfriend and the Claimant’s sister.
• The Claimant’s sister followed the Defendant’s car.  She was driving dangerously close to it and shouting.
• In response to this, the Defendant telephoned 999 and was advised to drive to a nearby police station.
• The Claimant was called by her sister.  She arrived and pulled her own car up around 10 feet in front of the Defendant’s car, whilst it was stationary at a set of traffic lights.
• The Claimant exited her car.  She ran towards the Defendant’s car whilst shouting and screaming.
• The Defendant, in a state of genuine fear, pulled away, turning away from the Claimant. 
• As the Defendant was pulling away, the Claimant tripped and fell towards the Defendant’s car.  The Claimant was run over, and suffered serious injuries to her right arm and right leg.

At trial, Jamie argued that, given the case had been pleaded only in negligence, the key consideration for the Court was whether the Defendant’s decision, to pull away at the time and in the manner that she did, was reasonable in the context of the circumstances that existed at the time. It was argued that, faced with a rapidly developing situation, where violence was feared, and in circumstances where the Defendant had been surrounded, it was entirely reasonable to move off. Jamie relied upon the High Court’s decision in Mohmed v Barnes & EUI [2019] EWHC 87 (QB), in which Turner J dismissed a claim in similar circumstances. In that case, the High Court made a number of helpful observations, including that it can be reasonable for a driver to drive towards a pedestrian where the driver was reasonable and genuinely in fear for their safety. The High Court also commented that, in such cases, a reasonable driver cannot be expected to ‘weigh to a nicety the relevant risks involved’.

Jamie has observed road rage is becoming an increasingly prevalent feature in road traffic accident litigation.  These cases require a bespoke approach, given there are often a number of defences potentially available.

This is the second liability only road traffic accident trial that Jamie has successfully defended in the last 3 weeks. His clerks, Joe Gibson and Phillip Spencer, are able to provide further details of Jamie’s experience in this area.