Expert Witness Journal Issue 63 October 2025 - Flipbook - Page 23
Contributory Negligence and the
Vulnerable Road User
by Kate Longson
It should be borne in mind that the doctrine does
not apply to claims in trespass to the person:
Pritchard v Co-operative Group Limited [2011]
EWCA Civ 329. It will not, therefore, be open to a
defendant to raise contributory negligence if, for
instance, he has used a car to intentionally run
down a pedestrian, even if that pedestrian was
obstructively standing in front of the car.
Preface
Personal injury lawyers will be well familiar with
the concept of contributory negligence. This
article is intended to give guidance to practitioners
in more unusual cases where assessment of
contributory negligence may be more complex
than it 昀椀rst appears, focussing particularly on road
tra昀케c claims brought by vulnerable road users.
In a road tra昀케c context, therefore, it is likely only
to be claims in negligence which give rise to the
partial defence of contributory negligence. Such
a defence must be pleaded and proven by the
defendant and it is not open to the court to make a
昀椀nding in the absence of such a pleading.
General Principles
Pursuant to s1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory
Negligence) Act 1945:
Where any person su昀昀ers damage as the result partly of
his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person
or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be
defeated by reason of the fault of the person su昀昀ering the
damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof
shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just
and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the
responsibility for the damage.
Below are some case examples, from various
contexts, which may assist readers in the assessment
of contributory negligence in their own cases:
Pedestrians
McDermott v Pettit [2011] EWHC 3074 (QB) –
10% reduction – the Claimant was struck by the
Defendant’s car when crossing the road in the early
hours of the morning. He was 10 metres away from
the nearest pedestrian crossing. The Defendant
driver was driving at in excess of the speed limit
with an excessive blood alcohol level.
In road tra昀케c claims brought by vulnerable road
users, the same general principles relating to the
contributory negligence doctrine apply as with any
other claim. Accordingly, in determining whether
to make a reduction for contributory negligence
and to what extent, the court will consider:
•
The “moral blameworthiness” of the respective
parties; and
•
The causative potency of the parties’ actions.
Carpenter v Lunnon [2004] EWHC 3079 (QB) – 20%
reduction – the Deceased pedestrian was walking
at the edge of the carriageway of a country lane
(there was no pavement) when he was hit from
behind by the Defendant’s vehicle. He had been
walking in the direction of the 昀氀ow of tra昀케c. He
was wearing dark clothing and it was a dark night,
such that the Defendant’s opportunity to see the
Deceased before the collision was reduced.
The assessment of moral blameworthiness will
be highly fact speci昀椀c, taking account of factors
such as speed, intoxication, general behaviour
and awareness and, perhaps, the use of re昀氀ective/
protective gear, particularly by cyclists/
motorcyclists.
Sedge v Prime [2011] EWHC 820 (QB) – 25%
reduction – the Claimant, who had been drinking,
stepped out into a bollarded road used by both
pedestrians and vehicles, and into the path of the
Defendant’s car, without looking. The Defendant
had been driving far too quickly for the road
conditions and had not been paying su昀케cient
attention to the road conditions and the presence of
the Claimant.
As to causative potency, in claims involving
vulnerable road users the courts have readily
accepted that the damage likely to be caused by
a motor vehicle to a pedestrian/cyclist is highly
relevant when assessing contributory negligence:
Sinclair v Joyner [2015] EWHC 1800 (QB) at §73.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
21
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2025
