ON APPEAL FROM BRISTOL COUNTY COURT
(RECORDER HILL-SMITH)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
and
LORD JUSTICE RIMER
____________________
BROWN |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
PATERSON |
Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Andrew Davis (instructed by Messrs Jacobs) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Richards:
"Both Mr Brown and Dr Paterson were proceeding in an easterly direction. It was pitch-black and there was no street lighting at the relevant junction. The speed limit on the A420 road at that point was 60 miles an hour. At the point of collision, the road was 7.5 metres wide, each lane being 3.2 wide with a central hatched area 1.1 metres wide. Visibility in the approach to the collision site in an easterly direction was good. There was a sweeping, open right-hand bend as one approached the junction and visibility has been put at 383 metres."
"…Mr Brown was negligent in the way that he executed that right-hand turn from a nearside position directly into the path of the vehicle driven by Dr Paterson."
"142. DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching
- a corner or bend
- a hump bridge
- the brow of a hill.
143. DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
- approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
…"
"The points made by Dr Paterson in his evidence in this regard are that (i), there was nothing to alert him that Mr Brown was not going to proceed straight on; (ii) he did not see any signal, and that will include any hand signal because obviously Mr Brown did not have any lights; (iii) Dr Paterson did not see any break lights; (iv) Dr Paterson was not aware that Mr Brown had slowed down; (v) whilst Dr Paterson agreed that it would have been safer to have slowed down, he did not consider that it was a reasonable thing to do; and (vi) Dr Paterson said he was not a fan of flashing his lights, because this might induce night blindness, or that there was a risk that that might happen in any event."
"I think that whilst there was a possibility here that probably should have presented itself to Dr Paterson that Mr Brown might turn to the right, I am not satisfied that, given the darkness of the night, he necessarily should have been aware that Mr Brown has slowed down. I am not persuaded that this is a case where his standard of driving can, on a balance of probabilities, be criticised. I think that even if Dr Paterson had slowed down -- I do not think it is suggested that he should have stopped -- I think that even if he slowed down, given the joint findings of the experts, it is not demonstrated that in fact a collision would, on the balance of probabilities, have been avoided. So whilst I accept the principle of rules 142 and 143 and whilst I accept that Mr Brown had slowed down, I am not satisfied that Dr Paterson was negligent in failing to slow down or move further across or flash his lights. Moreover, even if he had slowed down, it is not proven on the balance of probabilities that an accident could have been avoided."
Lord Justice Rimer:
Lord Justice Mummery:
"I realise that this will be a bitter decision for Mr Brown, who, as I have already said, presented himself very well in the witness box. I have no doubt as to his integrity and the integrity of the evidence he gave. As I say, he was a sympathetic figure and I have every sympathy for him. However, it is my duty to make findings based on the evidence presented to the court, and those are my findings."
Order: Appeal dismissed