I thought it might be useful to post some of the case law which defines how liability is split in difficult road traffic accident cases:

1. Misleading Signals:
Case Law: Wadsworth vs. Gillespie

Vehicle A approached a Give Way sign. The driver saw that Vehicle B approaching from the right was displaying a left-turn signal. Vehicle A pulled out assuming vehicle B was going to turn. He did not and Vehicle A was struck by Vehicle B.

Outcome: In Wadsworth v Gillespie the court ruled that liability is split 2/3 to 1/3.

It was ruled that Vehicle A should have waited to see what the other vehicle did rather than trusting the signal, and Vehicle B was one-third to blame for displaying a misleading signal.

Although Wadsworth vs. Gillespie is often quoted by insurers if you find yourself in this position there are other cases which had different results in court.

In Winter vs. Cotton the driver giving the misleading signal is held to be 100% to blame.

Always seek detailed legal advice if these issues are raised.

2. Queue Jumping
Powell vs. Moody

Vehicle A pulled out of a side road and was hit by Vehicle B, a motorcycle that was overtaking two lines of stationary vehicles on the wrong side of the road.

Outcome: The court ruled that liability is split 20%/80% Vehicle A:B

Vehicle A had a duty to ensure it was safe to pull out of a side road, so it had to accept part of the blame. However, jumping a queue and overtaking on the wrong side of the road is a maneouvre that should be undertaken with a great deal of care, so the biker shouldered 80% of the liability.

3. Speeding in relation to road traffic accidents
Barna vs. Hudes Merchandising Corp.

Vehicle A pulled out of a side road intending to turn right. The driver's view was obstructed by parked cards. Vehicle B, approaching from the right, hit Vehicle A on the side. Vehicle B was estimated to be breaching the speed limit.

Outcome: The court ruled that Vehicle A is 100% liable.

The judge considered that exceeding the speed limit, while illegal, is not in itself negligence. Vehicle A should have ensured the major road was safe.

4. Accident at a junction
Williams vs. Fullerton

Vehicle A was on a major road and approached a crossroads with a minor road. The driver looked right and left, started to cross, and then was hit in the side by Vehicle B, which was travelling along the minor road.

Outcome: The court ruled that liability is split 25%/75%

It was ruled that, even though Vehicle B should have given way, the driver of Vehicle A should have followed the looked right again

5. Overtaking a vehicle which is turning right
Challoner vs. Williams and Croney

The driver of Vehicle A saw that the two vehicles behind it were not conducting any maneouvres, so he/she signalled to turn right and attempted to do so. Vehicle B overtook the two vehicles behind Vehicle A and hit Vehicle A in the offside (right-hand side).

Outcome: The court ruled that vehicle B is 100% liable.

On appeal, Vehicle A was found to have done nothing wrong as he had checked the position of the two vehicles behind. (For this reason, if the driver directly behind had started to overtake then it would have been settled 50/50.) Vehicle B should have ensured it was safe to overtake.

6. Two vehicles overtaking at the same time
Davison vs. Leggett

Two vehicles collided head-on whilst overtaking.

Outcome: The court decided liability is split 50/50.

There was no evidence to indicate who began overtaking first. It's possible neither party was negligent.

7. General overtaking
Holdack vs. Bullock Bros.

Vehicle A was a scooter and Vehicle B, a van. Whilst Vehicle A was overtaking, Vehicle B swerved right and hit Vehicle A.

Outcome: The court decided liability is split 1/3 to 2/3s.

Vehicle B shouldn't have changed course without warning, so takes two-thirds of the blame. The rider of Vehicle A was originally held negligent because he/she didn't toot the horn prior to overtaking. On appeal it was felt that there was no need to toot, but still the result of the case was not changed.

Different days I think when AA patrolmen probably still saluted.

Edited by LucyBC on 10/11/2010 at 14:33