Expert Witness Journal Issue 63 October 2025 - Flipbook - Page 24
caused by his negligence but alleged contributory
negligence on the part of the Claimant. The court
concluded that the Claimant could and should have
taken evasive action in response to the movement
of the van.
Hickman v London Central Bus Co Ltd [2013] EWHC
1703 (QB) – 40% reduction – the Claimant was
hit by a bus which pulled away from a stationary
position at tra昀케c lights when they turned from
red to green. The Claimant had crossed directly
in front of the bus, ahead of the tra昀케c lights and
pedestrian crossing, expecting that the lights would
remain on red. The bus driver did not see him prior
to the collision.
Sinclair v Joyner [2015] EWHC 1800 (QB) – 25%
reduction – the Defendant car driver attempted to
overtake the Claimant cyclist on a narrow country
lane. The Claimant was riding in the middle of the
road and lost control of her bicycle momentarily.
The Defendant’s decision to overtake when there
was insu昀케cient room to do so safely deprived the
Claimant of the opportunity to regain control
of her bicycle and was thus primarily causative
of the accident. The Claimant also bore some
responsibility for riding in the middle of the road
when she should not have been.
Hill v Master Concrete Northern Limited [2010]
EWHC 3613 (QB) – 50% reduction – the Claimant
was hit by a lorry driving at slow speed which
turned into a side road which she was attempting
to cross. The Claimant did not see the lorry despite
its size and the noise it created. She had accordingly
not looked properly. The lorry driver also did not
see the Claimant, but this was due to a failure to
look in the exact right spot at the correct moment.
The balance of the moral blameworthiness lay
against the Claimant but the causative potency of
the lorry was such that, overall, it was appropriate
to split liability evenly.
Reynolds v Stutt & Parker LLP [2011] EWHC
2263 (ch) – 66% reduction – the Claimant
had deliberately caused a collision with a work
colleague during a cycling event at a country
park organised by his employer. He had declined
to wear a helmet despite the fact that one was
available. Whilst the employer had been negligent
in the manner in which it organised the event, the
Claimant bore the greater degree of responsibility
for riding in such a dangerous manner.
Ehari v Curry [2006] EWHC. 1319 (QB) – 70%
reduction – the Claimant, who was a child, stepped
out in front of the Defendant’s vehicle from behind
a car which had completely concealed her presence
until one second before the collision. The court
accepted that the Defendant could not have braked
to avoid the collision but found that he could and
should have swerved to avoid the Claimant.
Motorcyclists
Davis v Schrogin [2006] EWCA Civ 974 – no
reduction – the Claimant motorcyclist was 昀椀ltering
past a queue of tra昀케c when the Defendant car
driver executed a U-turn, out of the queue of
tra昀케c, directly into the Claimant’s path. The
Claimant had been so close to the Defendant’s
vehicle before he executed the turn that he was
unable to take any action to avoid the accident. The
court accordingly declined to make any reduction
for contributory negligence.
Watson v Skuse [2001] EWCA Civ 1158 – 80%
reduction – the Claimant attempted to cross a
pelican crossing when the lights were in favour of
the 昀氀ow of tra昀케c. He stepped into the road directly
in front of the Defendant’s lorry, out of view of the
driver.
Cyclists
Smith v Finch [2009] EWHC 53 (QB) – no reduction
– the Claimant cyclist was hit at speed by a
motorcyclist and knocked from his bike. He was
not wearing a helmet, although he did own one.
Although the court held that wearing a helmet
was a sensible practice, although not mandated by
law, the Defendant called no evidence to establish
that the injuries would have been less severe/
avoided had the Claimant been wearing a helmet.
Accordingly no reduction was made.
O’Connell v Jackson [1972] 1 QB 270 – 15% reduction
– the Claimant motorcyclist was knocked from his
bike when the Defendant emerged from a minor
road into his path. The Claimant did not contribute
to the accident itself but was not wearing a helmet.
Medical evidence suggested that, had he worn a
helmet, his injuries would have been lessened. A
reduction was accordingly made to re昀氀ect this.
Jones v Lawton [2013] EWHC 4108 (QB) – 33%
reduction – the Claimant motorcyclist was 昀椀ltering
past a lane of stationary tra昀케c when the Defendant
emerged from a side road, though the line of
stationary tra昀케c and into the path of the Claimant.
The Defendant was primarily liable for failing to
account for the possibility of a proceeding cyclist/
motorcyclist and for failing to hear the motorcycle
Rickson v Bhaker [2017] EWHC 264 (QB) – 20%
reduction – the Claimant cyclist was knocked
from his bicycle when the Defendant van driver,
who had been travelling in the opposite direction,
turned right across his path. The van driver was
convicted of driving without due care and attention
and accepted that the accident had primarily been
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
22
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2025
