Personal Injury Compensation Claims for Pedestrians in Bexleyheath, Kent, London & South East

I have dealt with a large number of compensation claims involving pedestrians injured as a result of accidents involving cars, vans, buses and motorcycles. I have recovered compensation for adults and children who have been injured whilst crossing roads at pedestrian crossings, next to road junctions, crossing roads where there were no pedestrian crossings in the vicinity, pedestrians who have been injured whilst walking or standing on pavements or near kerbs; pedestrians who have been struck whilst walking across a carpark and pedestrians who have been injured whilst walking across driveway entrances. Contributory negligence will often be an issue in a pedestrian accident claim because in the majority of pedestrian accidents claims, it is arguable that the pedestrian could have done something to avoid the accident, for example when crossing the road, looked carefully in both directions to ensure that it was safe to cross and when crossing at a pedestrian controlled crossing, waiting for the pedestrian signal lights to change to green before starting to cross or crossing a road between parked cars where the driver’s view of a pedestrian would have been obstructed. In some cases, courts have concluded that because a pedestrian walked into the path of an oncoming vehicle without attempting to check for oncoming traffic, the claims have been unsuccessful as the courts have held that the vehicle driver could not have avoided the collision. In the majority of pedestrian accident cases, the claimant’s claim will be successful but there will be a deduction for contributory negligence in a significant proportion of claims although generally where a pedestrian is injured whilst crossing at a designated pedestrian crossing point, a deduction is unlikely to apply.

Personal Injury Compensation Claims for Pedestrians

Pedestrian Accident Claims when no compensation was awarded

I will deal firstly with pedestrian accident claims that have been unsuccessful. In the case of Pollard v Kurcic (1994) CLY 3402 the claimant was struck by a motorcycle whilst crossing the road. He wasn’t crossing at a designated pedestrian crossing point, although there was a pedestrian crossing a short distance away. A bus driver indicated that the claimant could cross and as he crossed, he was struck by a motorcyclist who was overtaking the bus. The claim was dismissed as the court concluded that the motorcyclist was not driving negligently and was taken by surprise by the claimant, he applied his brakes and tried to swerve to avoid the claimant but couldn’t avoid the collision. The motorcyclist was travelling at no more than 15mph when overtaking the stationary bus.

In Barlow v Entwistle (2000) A2/99/0922, the claimant was fooling around on a grass road beside an A road, he then ran into the road heading for the other side. The defendant had been driving at only 25mph when he struck the claimant. The Court of Appeal overturned the original decision in favour of the claimant subject to a 50% deduction for contributory negligence and held that the driver wasn’t to blame at all as he couldn’t have anticipated that the claimant would run across a busy road, therefore the accident wasn’t caused by the driver’s lack of attention.

In the case of Roda Sam v Adkins (2005) EWCA Civ 1452 the claimant was injured when crossing a busy four lane street. A van was parked at the side of the road and the claimant crossed next to the parked van. The defendant was travelling at only 20mph when his car struck the claimant. Although the claimant’s claim succeeded at first instance, the defendant’s appeal was successful and the Court of Appeal held that the defendant driver could not have avoided the accident as the claimant pedestrian stepped into the path of the car and the car driver’s view was obstructed by the parked van.

In Maranowska v Richardson (2007) EWHC 1264 the claimant was injured when she stepped in front of a bus whilst attempting to cross the High Road in Tottenham, London. The bus was travelling at only about 10mph, but the driver stated that he couldn’t avoid colliding with the claimant as she suddenly stepped out in front of the bus giving him no time to react. The court held that the bus driver was not negligent.

In the case of Qamill v Holt (2009) EWCA Civ 1625 the claimant was injured whilst attempting to cross the road at Cricklewood Broadway. The claimant stepped into the path of the defendant driver without looking in either direction and walked into the front offside wing of the defendant’s vehicle. The court held that the defendant was travelling at a modest speed in heavy traffic and had no time to react, therefore the claimant’s claim was dismissed.

In the case of Stewart v Glaze (2009) EWHC 204 QB the claimant had been drinking with a friend and was next to a bus-stop before the accident occurred. The claimant then ran out into the road and suffered severe injuries when he was struck by the defendant’s vehicle. The court held that the defendant driver had no time to react and there was no evidence that the defendant was speeding prior to the incident.

In Ramirez v Maheshwari (2014) reported in Bingham and Berrymans Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases, the claimant crossed the road between two parked vehicles. The defendant was travelling at only a modest speed and didn’t see the claimant until the collision occurred. Therefore, the judge held that the driver was not negligent.

In the case of Pursoty v Vaghani and Clark Construction Security Limited (2013) EWHC 989 QB the claimant crossed a three lane street between two parked lorries. The defendant driver stated that he could not avoid colliding with the claimant because he only saw her just as she stepped into his path. The court held that the defendant was not speeding at the time and had no time to react and therefore dismissed the claim.

In the case of Horner v Norman (2015) EWCA Civ 1055 the claimant ran across a dual carriageway into the path of the defendant driver but contended that the driver could have seen the claimant before the collision and braked to avoid the impact. The defendant contended that the road surface was icy and the court accepted that the defendant could not brake in time to avoid the accident because of the icy conditions and therefore had insufficient time to react to prevent an accident.

In Dursan v J Sainsbury plc (2015) EWHC 233 QB the claimant was wearing dark clothing at the time of the accident and crossed the road from behind a bus which was in the bus lane and moving very slowly in stop start traffic. It was dark at the time and the defendant did not have time to react to the claimant who stepped into the path of his van. There was no evidence that the defendant driver was speeding and the court noted that because of the limited lighting, the deceased claimant’s dark clothing and reduced visibility because of the presence of the slow moving traffic, the collision was a tragic accident and was not caused by the negligent driving of the defendant van driver.

In Scott v Gavigan (2016) EWCA Civ 544 the claimant suddenly ran diagonally across a road in Streatham, south east London and was struck by the defendant’s motorcycle. He was intoxicated at the time. The claim was dismissed at first instance and the claimant appealed. The appeal was dismissed as the Court of Appeal held that the claimant’s actions were not foreseeable and the defendant had no time to react as the claimant ran into the road at an angle towards the defendant.

In Walker v Culina Logistics Limited reported in Bingham and Berrymans Personal Injury Motor Claims Cases (2016) the claimant crossed a dual carriageway just before midnight when he was struck by the defendant’s lorry. The lorry driver contended that the claimant stepped into his path making a collision unavoidable as he braked as soon as he saw the claimant but didn’t have time to stop. The claim was dismissed as the court held that the driver could not have avoided the collision in an area where pedestrians were not expected to be walking along in unlit, dark conditions.

Toby Oliver Chan v Miss Paula Rivers (First Defendant) and Advantage Insurance Company Ltd (Second Defendant) [2021] EWHC 2004 QB. In this case a seventeen year old male crossed the road outside a school and sustained a number of serious injuries including a severe brain injury. He crossed the road from a parking area between a car and a bus. The claimant was knocked over by the defendant’s car which was travelling about 25mph within the urban speed limit. When the defendant driver struck the claimant, the claimant was described as crossing the road at a jogging pace. The defendant contended that he had no time to react and he applied emergency braking as soon as he saw the claimant. The defendant’s car struck the claimant on the front nearside. The court concluded that a reasonably competent driver in those circumstances would not have been able to stop in time but because he was seventeen years old at the time of the accident, no allowance should be made for the fact that the claimant’s judgment would have been impaired in any way as a result of his age.

Ahanonu v Southeast London & Kent Bus Company Ltd [2008] EWCA Civa 274 Court of Appeal. In this case a bus driver was following another bus out of the station and had to make a very sharp left hand turn. The road was screened off by railings but the claimant pedestrian walked along the side of the road inside the railings and decided to cross the road further up the road from a nearby pedestrian crossing and was injured when struck by the rear end of the bus and a bollard at the side of the road. The claimant was initially awarded compensation but subject to a 50% deduction for contributory negligence but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision and held that the bus driver was not to blame, the accident was wholly caused by the dangerous actions of the pedestrian.

Pedestrian Accident Claims that were successful but subject to a deduction for contributory negligence

In the majority of pedestrian accident claims, the claimant will recover at least a proportion of their compensation claim but with a deduction for contributory negligence because the claimant didn’t take proper observation before crossing the road.

In Yetkin v Newham LBC (2010) EWCA Civ 776 the claimant was injured whilst crossing an urban dual carriageway. The claimant crossed to the centre of the dual carriageway. The central section of the dual carriageway had been planted with shrubs, bushes and plants of different shapes and sizes. The claimant’s view of oncoming traffic was therefore restricted. The claimant was struck by the defendant’s car whilst crossing from the central reservation area. The claimant bought a claim against both the driver and the local authority on the basis that the local authority had planted the central reservation area with shrubs and bushes which restricted visibility and created a foreseeable danger to pedestrians crossing in that area. The claim against the driver was dismissed as the driver had insufficient time to react to the claimant when she stepped into the path of the vehicle but her claim against the local authority was successful although the damages were reduced by 25% for contributory negligence as she didn’t take proper observation before crossing. The claimant’s appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal upheld the 25% deduction. The Court also held that whilst the claimant had crossed at a pedestrian crossing point, she should have waited for the lights to change to green for pedestrians to cross before she started to cross from the central reservation area.

In Snow v Giddens (1969) 113 Solicitors Journal 229, the claimant crossed a busy road not far from a pedestrian crossing in an area where there wasn’t a central refuge. There was a central refuge a short distance away. The claimant crossed the first half of the road and then waited in the middle for traffic to clear. Whilst the claimant was waiting in the middle of the road, he was struck by the defendant’s motorcycle that had been overtaking a line of slow moving stationary traffic. The claimant’s claim succeeded at first instance but the defendant appealed and the Court of Appeal concluded that a deduction for contributory negligence of 25% would apply because the claimant had chosen not to use the nearby pedestrian crossing or to cross where there was a central refuge, therefore he found himself marooned in the centre of the road at the mercy of oncoming traffic.

In Baker v Willoughby (1970) 2 WLR 50 the claimant was injured whilst crossing a road in the country that was 33 feet in width. The claimant saw the defendant’s car approaching when the car was about a hundred yards away and assumed that he had time to cross. He walked into the centre of the road where he was struck by the defendant’s car. The defendant driver had overtaken two cars about two hundred yards before the point of impact and should have seen the claimant crossing the road. He had time to react to prevent a collision. The claimant’s claim was successful subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 25% for failing to take proper observation. Although the Court of Appeal increased the deduction for contributory negligence to 50%, that decision was reversed by the House of Lords who reinstated the original 25% deduction. The House of Lords noted that whilst the pedestrian had to look to both sides as well as forwards when crossing, a pedestrian would be crossing the road at no more than about 3mph and would rarely be a danger to anyone else, whereas a motorist would be travelling at considerable speed and would therefore have to be very observant as the consequences of a collision could be disastrous.

In Hunt v Murphy (1971) PTR 186 the claimant was killed when crossing a road where visibility to her left was restricted to about a hundred yards because of a bend in the road. The claimant’s husband contended that she had looked in both directions before crossing and that the defendant had been driving at more than the 30mph speed limit as he came around the bend. The court held that whilst the claimant had looked in both directions before crossing, she didn’t look again to her left as she was crossing the road, therefore the compensation claim brought by the husband was reduced by 20% for contributory negligence.

In Liddell v Middleton (1996) PIQRP 36 the claimant and his wife crossed a well-lit busy road at night. The claimant and his wife reached the centre of the road in safety and then waited there for a short while. The claimant’s wife saw a car approaching in the distance and then ran across the remaining half of the road onto the opposite pavement. The claimant waited in the centre of the road for a short while and then took one or two steps towards the other side of the road and as he did so was hit by the defendant’s car. The defendant claimed that he’d been travelling in a line of cars and hadn’t seen the claimant’s wife cross the road before the claimant and the first he knew about the presence of the claimant was when he heard the sound of the collision. The claimant claimed that the defendant had been travelling too quickly and could have sounded his horn. The claimant’s claim was successful subject to a deduction of contributory negligence of 25% but the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal increased the deduction for contributory negligence to 50% as the Court held that the claimant had attempted to cross the carriageway where it was very dangerous to do so and the defendant’s car was almost upon the claimant as he started to cross the second part of the road. The Court also concluded there was no requirement for the defendant to have sounded his horn prior to the accident. In this case the parties relied on traffic accident reconstruction experts but the Court took the view that their evidence did not assist the Court in determining the causation of the accident.

In the case of Burtell v Farrell (1995) Bingham and Berrymans Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases, the claimant was a nineteen year old student from Spain. The claimant had been chatting to her friend who was sitting in a taxi. The claimant then moved away from the taxi and was struck by the defendant’s car. The claimant had looked in the wrong direction before walking into the road and being struck by the defendant’s car. The defendant driver stated that she had no time to react, she couldn’t have swerved to avoid the collision, although she did apply her brakes. The judge held that the claimant was 75% to blame for the accident, although both parties appealed, the Court of Appeal upheld the 75% deduction for contributory negligence.

In Eagle v Chambers (2003) EW CA Civ 1107, the claimant who was a seventeen year old female was walking unsteadily in the centre of a dual carriageway. She was in a highly emotional state at the time of the accident. The defendant was driving at about 35mph when the car struck the claimant. The claimant’s claim succeeded but was subject to a 60% deduction for contributory negligence. The decision was appealed and the Court of Appeal reduced the deduction for contributory negligence to 40% noting that it was rare for a pedestrian to be found more culpable than a driver unless it could be shown that the pedestrian moved suddenly into the driver’s path. In this case there was no evidence that the claimant had done that, therefore the driver was more responsible than the pedestrian, particularly as a car is a potentially dangerous weapon.

In Adgei v King (2003) EWCA Civ 414, the claimant attempted to cross a road near to a set of traffic lights. A witness saw the claimant starting to cross the road and stopped but the defendant driver continued colliding with the claimant. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not driving too quickly, however road conditions were good with clear visibility and the defendant should have seen the claimant if he’d slowed down prior to impact. The claimant’s claim was successful but subject to a deduction of 40% for contributory negligence.

In the case of Green v Bannister (2003) EWCA Civa 1819 the claimant had collapsed when drunk and was lying on the road in a residential cul-de-sac. The defendant was reversing at the time of the accident and ran over the claimant. The claimant’s claim was successful but subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 60%. The defendant driver appealed on the basis that she could not see the claimant prior to the accident but the Court of Appeal concluded that if she had checked her nearside mirror before reversing, she probably would have seen the claimant lying in the road and could have stopped before the accident. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment.

In Sahakian v McDonnell (2007) EWHC 3242 QB the claimant sustained a serious injury when crossing the road behind a parked car. He had no recollection of the incident due to a traumatic brain injury. The defendant stated that he didn’t see the claimant who was wearing dark clothing come out between the two cars and then ran across the road without looking. The court held that the defendant had been travelling too quickly at the time of the accident and was not paying sufficient attention to movement of pedestrians in the area. Further, the claimant’s head would have been six inches above the height of the parked cars and the defendant would have had a sufficient opportunity to effect proper braking. The claimant’s claim succeeded subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 50%.

In Belka v Prosperini (2011) EWCA Civa 623 the claimant was crossing a dual carriageway in the early hours of the morning and did not cross at a designated pedestrian crossing point. The claimant who was accompanied by a friend reached the centre refuge of the dual carriageway, the claimant then took a chance and ran across the other section of the road and was then struck by the defendant’s car. The defendant admitted that he’d seen the claimant when he was about twenty-five to fifty metres away. The claimant’s claim was successful but subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 66% on the basis that the claimant crossed when it was unsafe to do so but the defendant should have been more observant and could potentially have avoided the collision.

In Lightfoot v Go Ahead plc (2011) EWHA 89 QB the claimant attempted to flag down a bus on a dark night on an unlit country road. The claimant was very drunk at the time. The bus driver was travelling at about 25mph before the accident happened, he took his hand off the steering wheel and switched on a cabin light to consult a timetable. The driver didn’t see the claimant until it was too late to avoid a collision. The court concluded that because there was no footpath and there was a bus-stop nearby, the driver should have anticipated that there may have been pedestrians at or near the edge of the road and because he was looking at his timetable before the accident, it prevented him from keeping a proper lookout. The claimant’s claim was successful but was subject to a 40% deduction for contributory negligence.

In the case of Robert Ayres v Mahesh Odedra (2013) EWHC 40 QB the claimant was another drunken pedestrian. The claimant had been drinking with friends and had been fooling around prior to the accident. The claimant then left his friends and walked in front of the defendant’s car. The claimant was behaving in a drunken anti-social way. The defendant attempted to drive around the claimant but knocked the claimant to the ground. The claimant’s claim was successful but the court applied a deduction for contributory negligence of 20%. The court concluded that the defendant should have waited until the claimant was on the pavement before moving off as the claimant was walking in the direction of the pavement prior to the accident so the defendant bore a greater degree of responsibility.

In Wooldrich v George (2017) Bingham and Berrymans Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases, the claimant crossed the road when the defendant was only twenty metres away. The speed limit in the area was only 20mph and the defendant was not travelling in excess of the speed limit. The defendant contended that he had no time to react, the road was well lit with street lighting. The claimant’s claim was successful but was subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 30%. The court concluded that the car driver bore greater responsibility than the pedestrian as the car could be a dangerous weapon but the pedestrian had been negligent in placing himself in a position to be hurt.

In the case of Gonzalez-Ramirez v First Counties Buses Limited (2017) Bingham and Berrymans Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases, the claimant pedestrian was struck by a bus as she was crossing the road. The speed limit in the area was 20mph. The court was assisted by CCTV footage on the bus which showed that the claimant would have been visible for about eight seconds before she attempted to cross. The bus was travelling at only about 16mph but as the accident occurred on a pedestrianized road, the court concluded that an appropriate speed in the area should have been only about 10mph, therefore the bus driver had been travelling too quickly and not kept a proper lookout. The claim succeeded but was subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 50%.

In Goddard and Walker v Greenwood [2003] PTR 10 the claimant crossed the road at a light controlled pedestrian crossing. When the claimant crossed the road, the lights were on red for pedestrians and green for vehicles. The claimant was struck by the defendant’s car whilst on the crossing. The Court of Appeal gave judgment for the claimant but subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 80%. The pedestrian was mostly liable for the accident but the car driver could not have taken proper observation when he approached the crossing despite the fact that the lights were on green for vehicles.

Van & Others v Occidental – Companthia De Serguros SA [2015] EWCA Civa 572. In this case the claimant sustained a traumatic brain injury and unfortunately died as a result of her injuries. The accident occurred in Portugal when the claimant and her husband were leaving a restaurant at a resort in the Algarve late at night. Streetlighting was poor in the area. When they started to cross the road it appeared to be clear but a car came from their right over the crest of a hill. The car had its lights on and the engine could have been heard but they were chatting at the time so didn’t hear it. The car was travelling at about 59mph, the speed limit was 56mph and a safe approach speed was considered to be 43mph, therefore the driver was travelling too quickly. The first instance decision was that there was no contributory negligence but the defendant appealed and the Court of Appeal held that a deduction for contributory negligence of 20% would apply. The driver’s speed was found to be the principle cause of the accident.

Goddard and Walker v Greenwood [2002] EWCA Civa 1590. In this case two pedestrians were injured when crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing. The side of the road where they crossed was split into three lanes, beyond that there was a central reservation. A lorry was waiting at the junction in the nearside lane. The claimants began to jog across the crossing towards the central reservation. The lorry sounded its horn but they didn’t stop. When they went past the front of the lorry, a car driven by the defendant entered the junction in the middle lane and collided with them. The judge held that when they had been crossing the road the lights were red for pedestrians and therefore they had acted in an extremely careless way. The lorry had waited for the claimants to cross, the claimants should have stopped when they reached the edge of the lorry to make sure it was safe to continue to cross. The judge gave judgment for the claimant subject to an 80% deduction for contributory negligence. The claimant appealed and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision and apportioned 80% of the blame to the pedestrians. The court noted that the defendant’s driver’s view of the pedestrians was obstructed by the stationary lorry and therefore the defendant was unaware that the claimants were crossing until the accident occurred.

Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civa 801 CA. In this case the claimant stepped in front of the defendant’s vehicle when the vehicle was about 20 to 25 yards away and was travelling at an estimated 25mph. The claimant had been drinking and was subsequently found to have a blood alcohol level of three and a half times the permitted maximum for driving. The driver didn’t see the pedestrian and didn’t brake at all. The court did find that the defendant driver should have been aware of pedestrians. The pedestrian was at fault for crossing without taking proper observation. The court gave judgment for the claimant subject to a one third deduction for contributory negligence and rejected the defendant’s argument that a deduction should have been at least 50% because the claimant had been drunk. The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal and was upheld on appeal but the Court of Appeal did state that a deduction of only one third had been generous to the pedestrian but not plainly wrong.

Adams v Gibson [2016] EWCA Civa 3209 QB. In this case the claimant pedestrian had been drinking and was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. The claimant crossed a road that was subject to a 30mph speed limit and was fitted with speed humps. There was a pedestrian crossing and rails channelling pedestrians to the crossing. There were parked cars in recessed bays nearby. The claimant stepped off the kerb and crossed at a 45 degree angle and was struck by the car which had about 5 seconds to react to the claimant before impact. The court held that the defendant’s speed was only about 20 to 25mph. It was dark at the time of the accident but the defendant driver ought to have known that pedestrians could have been around. The accident occurred a short distance from the pedestrian crossing and pedestrians should have crossed at the pedestrian crossing point. The court also held that the pedestrian had not looked properly to his right before stepping into the road but the car driver was mostly to blame. Judgment was given for the claimant subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of one third.

Parkinson v Dyfed Powys Police [2004] EWCA Civ 802. In this case the pedestrian was drunk and walked out in front of a police car past a parked taxi. The police officer was driving too quickly. The court gave judgment for the claimant subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 35%.

Maria Sabir v Osei-Kwabena [2015] EWCA CIv 1213 CA. In this case the claimant was crossing a busy suburban road with shops. The claimant had just got out of a parked car and crossed a few metres beyond a pedestrian crossing. The claimant saw the defendant car approaching and believed that the car was approaching at normal speed and therefore subsequently believed that she had time to cross the road. The driver had a clear view but failed to see the pedestrian and struck her when she was four metres out in the road. The court gave judgment for the claimant subject to a 25% deduction for contributory negligence. The car driver appealed the decision and the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment and refused to apply a higher deduction for contributory negligence. The Court of Appeal concluded that the car driver should have kept a proper lookout where pedestrians were expected to be present and bore a greater degree of blame worthiness. The court noted that it was a busy road and therefore the pedestrian was not taking a deliberate risk as the pedestrian believed that there was time to cross the road and the driver had a sufficient amount of time before the impact to avoid colliding with her.

Ruma (a Protected Party) v Hassan and Esure Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 3209 QB. In this case the claimant sustained very serious injuries when crossing a four lane road. The claimant chose to cross a short distance from a pelican crossing. When the accident happened it was dark and wet. The claimant was wearing dark clothing so was more difficult to see, however the defendant driver was travelling too quickly on a dark wet road and failed to keep a proper lookout. The claimant pedestrian failed to stop at the centre line and was struck by the defendant’s car beyond the centreline. The court gave judgment for the pedestrian but subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 20% relying on the case authority of Eagle v Chambers which I’ve also referred to in this blog.

Glass v Donnelly [2016] NIQB 36. In this case the pedestrian stepped into the road without looking and chose to cross the road only a short distance from a pedestrian crossing where there was a bend in the road nearby. The court held that the defendant was travelling too quickly for the road conditions even though the car was only travelling at 30mph. A reasonable speed for the road conditions would only have been 20mph. The court noted that the pedestrian was primarily to blame for the accident, she was not paying attention when she left the footpath and placed the driver in a position where the driver had to make an emergency stop. The claimant’s claim succeeded but was subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of two thirds.

Pedestrian Accident Claims made on behalf of children

Where child pedestrians are injured, the courts will have regard to the fact that children tend to be significantly less careful than adults.

In Willbye v Gibbons (1997) Bingham and Berrymans Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases, the claimant was a twelve year old attempting to cross the road, the claimant ran into the side of the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant had previously driven past a group of jostling boys and was so concerned about their behavior that he hooted his horn. The defendant then stopped behind parked cars at the side of the road to allow other vehicles to pass in the opposite direction. He then started to move away from the parked position and as he did so, the claimant ran out between the parked cars. The defendant had previously seen the claimant standing on the kerb. The claim initially failed but on appeal, the court concluded that the defendant driver had not been paying proper attention and accelerated away from the parked position too quickly, he could potentially have braked in time, however the claimant’s claim was subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 75%. If the claimant had been an adult it was unlikely that any award would have been made in this case.

In Melleney v Wainwright (1997) Bingham and Berrymans Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases, the claimant was an eleven year old who crossed the road with two friends and was struck by the defendant. The speed limit in the area was 60mph. The defendant had seen the children at the side of the road before the incident and had reduced his speed to 30mph before the collision occurred. The court held that the defendant had been negligent as he was not aware that the claimant had definitely seen him when he slowed down and should have taken the precaution of sounding his horn and slowing down more substantially. The defendant’s appeal against the decision was dismissed and the claimant’s claim succeeded subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of one third. In my opinion, if this had been an adult claim, it would either have been dismissed or there would have been a far greater deduction for contributory negligence.

In Britland v East Midland Motor Services Ltd (1998) Bingham and Berrymans Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases, the claimant was a twelve year old boy on his way to school. The claimant ran along the pavement of a suburban road before bearing right through parked cars and across the road into the path of the defendant’s bus. The court held that although the claimant was a child, he should have known not to run into the road, he was therefore largely to blame for the accident, however the defendant driver ought to have noticed the claimant running along the edge of the road for about ten to twelve yards before the incident occurred and therefore anticipated the possibility of the claimant running out and slowed down, therefore the claimant’s claim was successful subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 75%. If the claimant had been an adult, I am firmly of the opinion that the claimant would not have been awarded any compensation at all in this case.

In the case of Wells v Trinder (2002) EWCA Civa 1030 the claimant daughter and her mother wanted to cross a road. The mother saw the defendant’s car approaching and warned her daughter not to cross but her daughter stepped into the path of the defendant’s car and was injured. The child claimant’s claim was successful at trial, however the defendant appealed and contended that either the claim should have been dismissed or the award should have been subject to a deduction for contributory negligence. The defendant’s appeal was successful and the court concluded that the child claimant had been warned about the approaching car by her mother and should have seen the car as her mother had noticed its approach. The claimant’s claim was therefore subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 25%, in my view if the claimant had not been a child, a much higher deduction would have been made or the claim may not have succeeded at all.

In Honour v Lewis (2005) EWHC 747, the claimant was a twelve year old boy who was crossing the road opposite his school when he was struck by the defendant’s car. The defendant driver claimed that he didn’t see the boy until immediately prior to the collision and he was travelling within the speed limit at the time. The claimant’s claim was successful. The court noted that the defendant was negligent in not slowing down and failing to notice the school warning sign and failing to sound his horn and take proper observation. The court did however note that the claimant had stepped into the road without noticing the presence of the defendant’s car and his claim was therefore subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of 20%. In my opinion, if the claimant had been an adult, the deduction would have been significantly higher.

In the case of Ehrari v Curry (2006) EWHC the claimant was a thirteen year old girl who walked out from behind a parked car which had furniture on its roof. The claimant would therefore not have been visible to the defendant as he approached. The defendant did not notice the claimant until the accident occurred. However, the defendant’s passenger did see the claimant just before the accident. The claimant’s claim was successful but subject to a large deduction for contributory negligence of 70% on the basis that the defendant driver had not been paying full attention at the time of the accident and could have sounded his horn, however the primary cause of the accident was the claimant walking into the road behind a parked car. The deduction for contributory negligence was very high in this case but I am of the opinion that if the claimant had been an adult, the claimant wouldn’t have been awarded any compensation at all.

In the case of Paramaslvan v Wicks (2013) EWCA Civa 262, the claimant was a thirteen year old boy who was in a group of boys outside some shops. The claimant threw an ice-cream at a friend and then ran across a paved area across a parking bay then between parked cars into the road and was struck by the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant contended that he was only travelling at 25mph but the judge concluded that that was too high a speed for the area where the accident happened. If he’d been travelling more slowly he could have potentially avoided hitting the claimant. The court awarded compensation and applied a deduction of contributory negligence of 50%. The defendant’s appeal was allowed on the basis that because the claimant was thirteen years of age, he was old enough to understand road safety and he created a hazard by doing something that was unexpected and careless. The deduction for contributory negligence was therefore increased to 75%. The age of a child claimant is relevant to the degree to which a court will apportion liability to a child claimant.

In the case of Ab v Lisa Main (2015) EWHC 3183 QB the claimant was an eight year old boy who was seriously injured when he ran out into the road and collided with the wheel arch of the defendant’s car. The speed limit in the area was 40mph and the defendant claimed that she was travelling at only 27mph prior to the impact. The defendant had seen the claimant with another boy prior to the accident but they were both standing at the side of the road. The claimant’s claim was successful and contributory negligence was assessed at only 20% to reflect the claimant’s young age. The court held that the defendant ought to have slowed down prior to the accident and sounded her horn and she could have anticipated that a child may run out into the road as she’d seen the claimant with another boy standing at the edge of the road but before the incident occurred.

Gull v McDonagh (First Defendant) and Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Second Defendant) [2021] EWCA CIV 1503. In this case a thirteen year old boy was struck by a car driven by the defendant and sustained serious injuries. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau were joined as a defendant to the action as the defendant driver was uninsured at the time of the accident. The speed limit in the area was only 20mph, however at the time of the accident, the defendant had been travelling at 45mph before slowing to about 40mph when the impact occurred. The claimant was wearing headphones at the time of the incident. The court concluded that the claimant had not looked properly before crossing the road even though he was only thirteen years of age at the time, he appreciated that the defendant’s car was approaching at speed and should have waited for it to pass before crossing the road. The court gave judgment for the claimant subject to a deduction for contributory negligence of only 10%. The claimant appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal on the basis that there should have been no deduction made at all for contributory negligence. The Court of Appeal held that the deduction for contributory negligence was unusually low in this case but did not overturn the decision. I am of the view that had the claimant been an adult, it was likely that the claim would have been subject to a much higher deduction for contributory negligence.”

Jackson v Murray [2015] UK SC5. In this case a thirteen year old stepped out from behind a school minibus on a rural road. The minibus had its hazard lights on at the time as it was dusk. She was struck by the defendant driver who was travelling at 50mph. The court held that a reasonable speed for the area would actually have been about 30-40mph. The driver should have appreciated that when the school bus was stationary with the hazard warning lights on, it was likely that children would be crossing nearby. The court at first instance held that the pedestrian was 90% to blame. The Court of Session (which was the Scottish Court of Appeal) reduced the deduction for contributory negligence down to 70%. The claimant further appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that the deduction should be further reduced to 50%. The Supreme Court noted that a thirteen year old would not have the same level of understanding and self-control as an adult but the thirteen year old should be able to appreciate the speed of the approaching car in poor conditions with its headlights on. There was no streetlighting in the area, therefore it was a more difficult road to cross safely. The Supreme Court held that it was appropriate for both parties to share equal responsibility for the accident, therefore the claimant received 50% of her compensation award to reflect the deduction for contributory negligence.

Ellis v Kelly [2018] EWHC 2031 QB. In this case an eight year old child ran across a road close to a zebra crossing at an angle. The child had been using a playground without supervision. The child saw the defendant car approaching but continued to run across the road. The defendant admitted liability for the accident but contended that contributory negligence applied. The court held that no contributory negligence applied as a lower standard of care had to be expected of a child of that age and experience and the child’s previous experience of crossing roads was from a safe position. The court therefore concluded that there was a momentary misjudgement on the part of the child and that the accident was caused by the car driver driving too quickly so no deduction for contributory negligence should apply.

Robert v Moore [2012] EWHC 2324 QB. In this case a thirteen year old child was walking along a road with a 60mph speed limit in the dark when she had to walk around a hedgerow which projected into the road. The court held that a thirteen year old child wouldn’t be expected to take the same level of precautions as an adult and was under no obligation to wear a high visibility jacket or use reflective markings or a torch when it was dark as it was at the time of the accident. The court concluded that to criticize the child pedestrian would have been unreasonable and made no deduction for contributory negligence.

Successful Pedestrian Accident Claims where no deduction was made for contributory negligence

In Parkinson v Parkinson (1973) PTR 193N the defendant was driving along a straight road at night. He saw on the nearside of the road two women pedestrians walking in the same direction as he was travelling but failed to notice two men walking about two yards behind them. The road was about twenty-five feet in width with a grass verge on the left but only a hedge on the right. The pedestrians had been walking next to the verge on the left. The pedestrians were walking about four and a half feet from the edge of the road when the claimants were struck by the defendant. The claimants’ claims succeeded in full with no deduction for contributory negligence. The defendant appealed on the basis that the pedestrians were negligent in not following the Highway Code as they should have been walking in the opposite direction to oncoming traffic. The appeal was dismissed. The court also noted that there was only a hedge on the right hand side of the road, whereas there was a grass verge on the left hand side of the road which would have allowed the pedestrians to walk onto the verge if they had been aware of an emergency.

Adamson v Roberts (1951) SC 681 1951 SLT 355, 101L JO511. In this case the claimant was walking along a pavement where the pavement narrowed because of a projecting building. She put one foot over the edge of the pavement onto the edge of the road to pass other pedestrians and as she did so she was struck from behind by a van. The claim was dismissed by the lower court but the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in full. It was dark at the time of the accident and appears that the Court concluded that it was foreseeable that the claimant would step into the edge of the road where the pavement was very narrow to pass other pedestrians and the driver should have adjusted his speed and avoided the collision.

Chapman v Post Office (1982) PTR 165. The claimant was struck by the defendant’s door mirror when standing on the kerb at a bus-stop. She sustained a severe blow to her arm. The lower court concluded that she was equally to blame for the accident and she was leaning onto the edge of the road. The Court of Appeal held that the claimant wasn’t to blame at all when standing on the kerb and wouldn’t have been guilty of negligence even if she had leant slightly into the roadway when struck and she was not negligent even if she’d had her back to oncoming traffic. The approach of the court here was that where a pedestrian is on the pavement a defendant is liable even where the claimant is on the edge of the pavement and only a small part of the defendant’s vehicle comes into contact with the claimant.

Powell v Phillips (1972) 3 ALL ER 864 973 PTR 19116 SOL Journal 713. In this case the claimant and a friend were walking along a poorly lit street at night on the left hand side of the pavement. There was some snow and slush on the pavement so they walked in the roadway near to the kerb. As they were walking in the roadway, the claimant was struck from behind by the defendant’s car which had been travelling at speed and did not stop. The defendant contended that the claimant was guilty of 25% contributory negligence because she was not complying with the rules for pedestrians in the Highway Code, she was walking along the edge of the road with her back to traffic and wasn’t wearing light coloured clothing so she was difficult to see. The court allowed the claim in full without any deduction for contributory negligence. It was not unreasonable for her to walk a few feet out into the road for about twenty yards because of the presence of snow/slush on the pavement. The court made no deduction in the award because the claimant wasn’t wearing fluorescent or bright coloured clothing.

Kurley v Downes (1973) PTR 188. The claimant and his thirteen year old son were walking together along a straight country road having left the lighted entrance to a fairground. They proceeded on the left hand side of the road where there was a grass verge. They walked along the verge then walked for about twenty yards along the edge of the road as they intended to cross the road near to an isolated streetlamp. Before they had the opportunity to cross the road, they were struck from behind by the defendant’s car. The claims both succeeded without any deduction for contributory negligence. The court held that it was not negligent to walk along the edge of the road with your back to the traffic as that was only a recommendation in the Highway Code and did not give rise to a presumption of negligence.

Osei-Antwi v South East London and Kent Bus Company Limited (2010) EWCA Civ 132. In this case the claimant was on her way back to work having just got off a bus and standing on the pavement where she intended to cross the road by some safety railings. A bus was turning into a depot and attempted a sharp left hand turn when the rear of the bus hit the claimant and crushed her against the safety railing. The bus company claimed that the claimant was standing on the wrong side of the railings and was in the road. The lower court decided that both parties were equally to blame for the accident but the claimant appealed. The appeal was successful and the claim succeeded without any deduction for contributory negligence. The Court noted that the claimant was not standing or walking in an obviously dangerous position, she was not doing anything dangerous at the time, there was no obligation for her to move further back as the bus was turning. She was standing in an area where vehicles were not supposed to be. The bus driver had turned at too sharp an angle and that was the sole cause of the accident.

O’Driscoll v Bundred [2019] WL UK 646. In this case the court concluded that there would be no deduction for contributory negligence when a pedestrian crossed a sideroad and a car driver turned right into a main road and cut onto the wrong side of the road when hitting the pedestrian. The accident occurred at night and the court concluded that a pedestrian was not required to wear light coloured bright or reflective high visibility clothing. The accident occurred on a residential road with normal street lighting. The court found that the pedestrian wasn’t required to wait until there was no traffic and the pedestrian wouldn’t have expected to encounter a vehicle approaching from a main road until the pedestrian had approached the centre of the road. There was no deduction for contributory negligence in this case.

Personal Injury Compensation Claims For Pedestrians in Bexleyheath
Personal Injury Compensation Claims For Pedestrians in London
Personal Injury Compensation Claims For Pedestrians in Kent
Personal Injury Compensation Claims For Pedestrians in South East

Finally, thank you for visiting Personal Injury Compensation Claims For Pedestrians page. We also remind you that we are Personal Injury Claim Specialists in Bexleyheath, London, Kent, and the South East. Our office is located in Bexleyheath, a town in the London Borough of Bexley. We cover London, Kent, and the east of England, where several law firms provide legal services. When looking for legal advice or representation, it’s essential to consult with the law firm that best addresses your needs. Don’t hesitate to get in touch with our solicitors for more information. Please follow our social media for regular updates.