Newcastle High Court judgement against contributory
negligence
This is a report of verdict of a
trial, A (a child) vs Shorrock, at the High Court, Newcastle on 19th March
2001. Judge Brown QBD. Although the child cyclist lost the case on other
grounds, the judge made it clear this his failure to wear a cycle helmet did not
amount to contributory negligence.
A, aged 14 at the date of the accident, was injured whilst riding his
brother's cycle, with which he was familiar, on his way from his home to his
part time job as a paper delivery body at about 6am. He came out of a pedestrian
shopping area, through one of three arches, across the pavement, and on to the
road at a speed of approximately 10 to 15 mph into the path of S, a serving
police officer, who was driving his camper van home from work after having
completed a 12 hour shift.
Held, giving judgment for the defendant, that the cycle was so close
to the camper van when it emerged on to the road that S had no opportunity to
brake, steer or avoid an impact. S had been driving at a speed between 20 mph
and 25 mph and the distance between the two vehicles was 20 feet. There was a
defect in the steering of the camper van, although this had no relevance to the
accident. There was no evidence that S was unduly tired after his shift or that
his reactions were dulled by fatigue and, in any event, not even the most alert
and quickest at reacting could have stopped in time. If the judge had found for
A on liability, A would have been held 50 per cent to blame on the basis that he
was familiar with the layout of the roads having followed that route for over a
year, and he rode out on to the road without stopping at the kerb or checking to
see if the road was clear. He would not however have found contributory
negligence based upon A's failure to wear a safety helmet as there was no
statutory requirement for him to do so, and he was not engaged in any
particularly hazardous kind of driving during which it might be thought prudent
to wear a helmet.
