Expert Evidence in Road Traffic Accidents
Joshua Smith (1) and Co-operative Group Limited (2) v Mark Hammond (2010)
In this case the Defendant lorry driver appealed against the decision that he was negligent and therefore liable for a road traffic accident in which the infant first claimant had sustained personal injuries.
The Claimant was a 13 year old boy employed as a paper boy by the local branch of the Co-op and was delivering newspapers on his bike. The Defendant was driving a lorry when the Claimant cycled out of a driveway, across the pavement and into the road without looking. The Defendant braked and swerved but hit the Claimant.
Expert evidence was relied upon in relation to reaction times. It was stated that it would not have helped prevent the accident if the Defendant lorry driver had used his horn. The judge considered the expert evidence but rejected it and said that in his own experience people reacted instantaneously to the sound of a horn. If the Defendant had used his horn when the Claimant was halfway across the pavement, the Claimant would have had time to stop or move away from the lorry. The Judge held that the Defendant was negligent but that the Claimant was 60% to blame. The Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed.
The Defendant appealed this decision and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The standard to be applied to all road users was that of a reasonably prudent motorist and the court was not entitled to impose a higher standard. The Defendant was found not negligent in failing to sound his horn as he was trying to avoid a collision. The Judge was entitled to reject expert evidence but should have provided reasons as to why and those reasons must be more than because the evidence does not accord with his own experience. Further the Judge had found that the Claimant was substantially to blame for the accident, he had been careless for his own safety and the Defendant’s safety. It was therefore held that the Defendant was not to blame and his counterclaim succeeded in full.
The expert evidence in this case was helpful for the Defendant. If a Judge rejects expert evidence, they are not simply entitled to rely on their own experience to provide a basis for a different finding, but proper reasons must be given for rejecting the evidence. This is a favourable decision for Defendant drivers in circumstances where a collision simply could not be avoided, despite best efforts to do so.