Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
18/09/2024
Anthony Johnson (instructed by Harriet Mearns-Thomas of Admiral Law) represents the Claimant, a driver who suffered serious injuries in a road traffic collision when she drove into collision with the side of an abnormally large load that was travelling in the opposite direction to her, encroaching into her carriageway, when she was driving at night on a poorly-lit A-road.
The Court listed the matter for a three-day preliminary issue trial to determine the extent of any liability on the part of the Second Defendant, a company that had been contracted to escort the abnormal load, which it did by the provision of two vans that drove in front of it at staggered intervals. At that trial, HHJ Walden-Smith heard live oral evidence from eight witnesses and also considered various dashcam footage and police body worn footage that existed.
In a situation where there was no statutory guidance or existing authority dealing with the liability of escort vehicles in such a situation, the Judge had to determine the ambit of the duty of care. She held that the obligation of the escort company was to ensure safe road use by notifying other road users that their carriageway was encroached upon by the unexpected obstacle of the wide load. She accepted the Defendant’s contentions that it was not responsible for the load itself, its lighting or the decision to transport it at night. She also accepted that only the police or Highways England have the power to ‘direct traffic’ in the legal sense, meaning that the Defendant could not be criticised for failing to do this.
The Judge found, however, that the Defendant had been negligent. Although she accepted that the same was voluntary and not binding, she placed reliance upon Highways England’s Code of Practice for Lighting and Marking Abnormal Loads. She found that the Defendant had failed to take adequate steps to ensure that road users travelling in the opposite direction were aware that its escort vans were accompanying an abnormal load, as opposed to merely being highway maintenance vehicles or breakdown assistance vehicles. She held that there was nothing that would make a reasonable road user who was not familiar with the location think that they were indicating an obstruction in the road.
She went on to make a 20% contributory negligence reduction to allow for the fact that she had found that the Claimant was driving too fast for the road conditions, and may have been able to avoid or minimise the collision if she had been driving more slowly and/or with more attention.
