England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		25/05/2007

HIS HONOUR JUDGE RICHARD SEYMOUR Q.C.:

1. The High Road in Tottenham, London N17 is in fact part of the A10 trunk road. The road runs from Seven Sisters northwards towards Tottenham Hale. For the purposes of this action the part of the road which is relevant is that immediately to the south of the junction with Sycamore Gardens. At that stretch of the road there are three north-bound carriageways for ordinary traffic and one south-bound carriageway which is reserved for buses only ("the Bus Lane"). The Bus Lane in its current configuration is separated from the other carriageways by a central pavement. The speed limit operative in respect of the Bus Lane is 20 miles per hour.
2. Immediately to the south of the junction of High Road and Sycamore Gardens there is a pedestrian-controlled set of traffic lights, what is often called a Pelican crossing. This crossing, in its present configuration, regulates the crossing of the three lanes of traffic going north on High Road, and ends at the central pavement separating the three lanes of north-bound traffic from the Bus Lane. In this judgment I shall refer to that crossing as "the Main Crossing". From a plan ("the Plan") of the area prepared on behalf of the defendants for the purposes of this action it appears that the length of the Main Crossing is 8.7 metres.
3. Slightly to the south of the Main Crossing, as the road is currently configured, is another Pelican crossing which regulates the crossing by pedestrians of the Bus Lane. The Bus Lane is noted on the Plan as three metres wide. In this judgment I shall call the Pelican crossing across the Bus Lane "the Bus Crossing". Although it has no materiality to any issue in this action, the combination of a pair of staggered Pelican crossings is apparently called a Puffin crossing.
4. At the point at which the Main Crossing terminates on the central pavement separating the north-bound carriageways from the Bus Lane there are, as matters are presently laid out, railings which prevent a pedestrian who has crossed the Main Crossing in an easterly direction from proceeding straight ahead, but direct such pedestrian to the Bus Crossing. The pedestrian seeking to cross High Road from west to east at this point is effectively funnelled from the east end of the Main Crossing to the west end of the Bus Crossing.
5. Facing the east end of the Bus Crossing is a hairdresser's shop. At the date with which I am concerned, 26 July 2003, that shop was called Zikays. It is now called Yaw's Hair Salon. In this judgment I shall refer to it simply as "the Hairdresser's".
6. From the Plan, 32.1 metres from the Bus Crossing in a southerly direction is a bus stop. The bus stop is outside a supermarket operated by Tesco Stores Ltd. In this judgment I shall refer to that supermarket as "Tesco".
7. One of the bus routes which uses the Bus Lane at the point with which this judgment is concerned is the Number 279. That service is operated by Arriva Plc, the second defendant.
8. The claimant, Mrs. Ella Maranowska, was born in Poland on 3 July 1959. She first arrived in England on 28 December 2002. Unsurprisingly, her first language is Polish, but she does speak some English. However, her English is poor. For the purposes of the trial Mrs. Maranowska was assisted by her daughter, Miss Iwona Lisicka, whose English is better, and by an interpreter provided on behalf of the defendants.
9. In July 2003 Mrs. Maranowska was working part-time as an assistant in a bakery called Anadolu Bakery at 170, Stoke Newington Road, London N16. However, she also worked part-time for the owner of that bakery, Mr. Hickmat Caplan, as a cleaner.
10. On Saturday, 26 July 2003 Mrs. Maranowska started work at the bakery at 8.00 a.m. and finished at 2.00 p.m. She then made her way towards her place of work as a cleaner. That involved taking first a Number 73 bus and then changing at the point in High Road, Tottenham which I have described. In her witness statement dated 20 February 2007 made for the purposes of this action in English Mrs. Maranowska explained that she sought to use the Main Crossing to traverse High Road from west to east. She went on:-

"7. I am not sure if I pressed the button for the green man or not, but I am very sure that I did not start crossing the road until the green man was showing. I had to wait a few seconds before the man turned from red to green. I am not sure if there were two green men or one green man, but I remember seeing the green man and the cars stopped on this side of the road. The green man, as far as I was concerned, meant that I could cross the whole of the road, so that would mean cross this side of the road, where the cars had stopped and also the other side of the road, which was a bus lane. The lights are there to control the whole crossing, including the bus lane and the lane for cars.

8. So, I managed to cross the lane for the cars, so that was where cars were coming from my right and I got to the middle part, before the bus lane and the man was still green, so I carried on walking. I did not see the bus and I must have walked in front of the bus. After I was struck by the bus, I saw that I had been hit by the middle of it, so I must have walked a few steps into the bus lane. I probably walked about two to three steps into the bus lane. I do not know if the cars behind me had started moving off, when I was hit by the bus.

9. At the moment I was hit by the bus, the man was still green."

11. The bus which hit Mrs. Maranowska, in fact at about 2.45 p.m., was a Number 279, with the registration number LF02 PKJ, being driven by Mr. Brian Richardson, the first defendant. It was a double-decker bus. In this judgment I shall refer to it as "the Bus".
12. As a result of being hit by the Bus Mrs. Maranowska suffered serious injuries. The Claimant's Schedule of Special Damages and Future Losses dated 2 October 2006 in this action, prepared by the solicitors acting for her at that time, Messrs. Levenes, summarised her injuries and the consequences of them in this way:-

"The claimant suffered the following injuries in a road traffic accident on the above date:-(a) a head injury;

(b) fracture of the left clavicle;

(c) soft tissue injury to back of left calf;

(d) severe comminuted fracture and crushing injury to the right leg, below the knee;

The claimant has had 11 operations and still has a painful right leg, with a non-union at the distal docking site. The leg will not take her weight. She now faces further, complicated orthopaedic surgery and the real possibility of an amputation at or above the right knee. Additionally, the accident had psychological consequences, involving a deteriorating state of mind, depression, breakdown, which was treated with medication to July 2005."

13. The severity of the injuries, and in particular the severity of the injuries to the right leg, were the result of the Bus running over Mrs. Maranowska and stopping with her leg underneath the offside front wheel of the bus. The bus had to be driven backwards in order to free her so that she could be taken to hospital.
14. In this action Mrs. Maranowska claimed damages against Mr. Richardson and his employer in respect of the injuries which she suffered on 26 July 2003. Her pleaded case, set out in paragraph 2 of Particulars of Claim served on 5 October 2006, was this:-

"The said accident was caused by the negligence of the First and/or Second Defendants, their servants or agents.

PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE By the aforesaid First Defendant

(a) Failed to keep any or proper lookout.

(b) Failed to heed and/or observe the presence of the Claimant in time, properly or at all.

(c) Failed to have any or sufficient regard or heed to the fact that Claimant had crossed the High Road Tottenham and was approaching the bus lane and would and could therefore cross the same ahead of him.

(d) Failed to slow down, brake and/or stop in time, properly or at all.

(e) In the circumstances drove too fast.

(f) Drove against a pedestrian light which was against him. It is the Claimant's case that she believes she crossed on a green man signal in her favour.

(g) Failed to have any or sufficient regard or heed to the traffic and road conditions at the material time and in particular that the bus lane passed at that point in front of Tescos, an the [sic] area which could and/or might be and/or was busy with pedestrians.

(h) Failed to travel at an appropriate and reasonable speed in all the circumstances.

(i) Failed to steer, manage or control his said motor vehicle so as to avoid colliding with the Claimant.

(j) Failed to give the Claimant any or sufficient notice of his intended course and his approach.

(k) In the premises, failed to have any or any adequate regard for the safety of pedestrians, namely the Claimant."

15. The account of her accident given by Mrs. Maranowska in her witness statement in English, from which I have quoted, appeared to a degree confused or contradictory, for she said that she assumed that the indication by the illumination of a green man on the panel on the column of the traffic light on the Main Crossing meant that it was safe for pedestrians also to cross the Bus Crossing, a view which perhaps suggested that she did not check when she reached the Bus Crossing to see whether a green man was illuminated at that crossing, yet she averred that there was a green man illuminated at the Bus Crossing as she set out across it. On the one hand, if she assumed, wrongly, that it was safe to cross the Bus Crossing because a green man indicated that it was safe to cross the Main Crossing, no green man was illuminated at the Bus Crossing and she simply continued into the path of the bus without looking, it would seem that the sole cause of the accident was her own want of attention. On the other hand, if a green man was in fact illuminated at the Bus Crossing as she set out across it, it would seem to follow that Mr. Richardson must have driven the Bus across a red traffic light at the Bus Crossing, in which case he and his employer would seem to be entirely responsible for the accident.
16. Subsequent to the making of her statement in English Mrs. Maranowska made a witness statement in Polish dated 27 March 2007. That witness statement was translated informally on behalf of the defendants. The purpose of the Polish statement seemed principally to be to put in evidence a number of photographs. However, the point of producing those photographs appeared to be to support a contention that the configuration of the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing as they presently exist post-dated the date of Mrs. Maranowska's accident. She asserted that at the date of her accident there was but one single Pelican crossing which regulated the passing of pedestrians across both the three north-bound carriageways and the Bus Lane. As matters turned out, the issue whether Mrs. Maranowska was correct in that averment was one of the central issues in the case.
17. Apart from the contention that Mr. Richardson ran her over in the course of failing to stop the Bus at a red traffic light, the other main criticisms of his driving on the occasion of the accident which Mrs. Maranowska relied upon were her assertions that he drove too fast, that he was not paying attention to the pedestrians in the area in which the accident occurred, and in particular not to her, and that he sounded the horn on the bus too late to provide her with effective warning of his approach.
18. Following the accident the police were called to the scene. A police officer, P.C. Andrew Smith, interviewed Mr. Richardson at about 3.58 p.m. at the site of the accident and wrote down what Mr. Richardson then said. What was said was:-

"I was coming down the bus lane when I reached the crossing here (points to pedestrian crossing outside 252, HIGH ROAD, TOTTENHAM), the lights were green at the time, when suddenly the [woman] walked out in front of me, I sounded my horn, she was looking the other way, I braked hard, unfortunately I hit the woman."

19. Other witnesses of the accident were identified by the police. A number were invited to give an account of what had happened. One was Mr. William Nevard. He and his wife were passengers on the Bus at the time of the accident. They were sitting together on the upper deck at the very front on the offside. In completing a questionnaire for the police which he dated 21 August 2003, Mr. Nevard gave this account of what he had observed:-

"The bus on which I was a passenger was travelling south along the bus only lane in High Road, Tottenham which was just approaching Tescos just north of the junction with Broad Lane. The pedestrian concerned, a youngish lady appeared to be in a hurry and stepped out into the bus lane, just in front of our bus without looking to see if the bus lane was clear. The driver of our bus braked and sounded his horn but did not stand a chance as the bus was less than 20 yds away from the pedestrian when she stepped out into the bus lane at the pedestrian crossing. I did not see the collision as the lady was out of my line of vision but I heard and felt a loud thump as the bus hit her before stopping just beyond the crossing. "

20. Another witness asked by the police to complete a questionnaire shortly after the accident was Mr. Henry Robinson. He dated his questionnaire, after completing it, 21 September 2003. His account of the events in question was:-

"I was travelling opposite direction to bus. I was stationary at the pelecal [sic] crossing. As I was moving off I saw a lady in the middle section between the road and the bus lane. She looked like she was preoccupied with some thing in her hand. She was facing Seven Sisters, when she just turned an steped [sic] into the bus lane right in front of the bus. The driver hooted, but as he was hitting her he had no chance. I was almost level with her when she was hit."

21. It does not appear that any other of the witnesses identified by the police was at that stage invited to give any account of what they had seen. However, a record was made of available witnesses. Those noted by the police, apart from Mr. Nevard and Mr. Robinson, included Mr. Isaac Nyarko, who had been working in the Hairdresser's. There were, however, other witnesses. Two of these were called at the trial on behalf of the defendants. They were Mrs. Nevard, and Olivia Mamphrey, who was in the Hairdresser's at the time of the accident.
22. When the police attended the scene of the accident some photographs were taken. Copies of those photographs were put in evidence. The photographs showed impact damage to the front driver's windscreen of the Bus approximately half way across the windscreen. That would suggest that Mrs. Maranowska was about 75 centimetres to a metre away from the commencement of the Bus Crossing on the west side at the moment of impact, that is to say, one or two steps into the Bus Lane.
23. Mrs. Maranowska contended vigorously that the photographs said to have been taken at the scene of the accident were not photographs of the scene of her accident, but were photographs of a later accident at the same site. A reason for her resistance to the acceptance of the photographs to which she objected may have been that it was clear from those photographs that the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing were laid out at that time as they are currently laid out, and that there was no single Pelican crossing across the north-bound carriageways and the Bus Lane. She put in evidence photographs taken by her daughter of the later accident in support of her case that the photographs relied upon by the defendants as being photographs of her accident were in fact photographs of the later accident. However, it was plain from a comparison of the two sets of photographs that each of the sets related to a different incident. In particular, the photographs of the fronts of the buses involved in each set of photographs clearly demonstrated that different vehicles were involved, and differently marked police cars were shown in each set of photographs. That the photographs relied upon as being photographs of the scene of Mrs. Maranowska's accident did indeed relate to that incident seemed to me to be clear from those views in which the registration number of the Bus was visible. Mrs. Maranowska contended that the bus shown in the photographs was not that which ran her over because P.C. Smith had written in a notebook completed by him in relation to the incident ("the Notebook") that the "Make, model and body type" of the bus involved was "DAF 90", whereas there was painted on the side of the bus in the photographs said to be of Mrs. Maranowska's accident, in various locations, the letter/number combination "DLP90". As I understood it, the latter combination was a fleet number, but one can understand how Mrs. Maranowska might have been confused by this.
24. Mr. Richardson in his oral evidence confirmed that what were relied upon on behalf of the defendants as being photographs of the scene of Mrs. Maranowska's accident were indeed photographs of the scene as he recalled it.
25. I am satisfied that the photographs which were relied upon by the defendants as being photographs of the scene of the accident to Mrs. Maranowska were indeed what they purported to be.
26. In reaching my conclusion about the photographs I do not ignore the evidence of Mrs. Maranowska's daughter that she saw works being undertaken to the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing in about the autumn of 2003, after her mother's accident. Miss Lisicka suggested that these works involved the transformation of the nature of the crossing from a single Pelican crossing at the time of Mrs. Maranowska's accident to the present configuration of the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing. I am satisfied that Miss Lisicka was mistaken about that. Not only were there the photographs showing the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing at the time of the accident to which I have referred, but Messrs. Levenes, whilst acting for Mrs. Maranowska, made contact with the Street Management division of Transport for London requesting information as to the layout of the crossing and any recent alterations to it. Under cover of a letter dated 9 May 2006, a copy of which was put in evidence, the Street Management division sent to Messrs. Levenes what was described as a copy of the most recent Site Layout Diagram. A copy of that Site Layout Diagram (to which I shall refer in this judgment as "the Drawing") was put before me. The copy of the Drawing put before me indicated that the original was at a scale of 1/200. By measurement of the known dimension of the width of the Bus Lane on the Drawing it appeared that the copy of the Drawing put before me was half the size of the original – that is to say, in fact at a scale of 1/400. The letter dated 9 May 2006 included this paragraph:-

"In your letter you requested information regarding changes that have been undertaken at this pedestrian crossing since the date of the accident. Transport for London Directorate of Traffic Operations' records indicate that no work has been undertaken at this crossing involving the layout or timings of traffic signals themselves since they were installed in October 2002."

27. Mrs. Maranowska did not accept the accuracy of what was stated in the letter dated 9 May 2006 as to the date of the installation of the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing, but she raised no specific objection to the letter. Indeed, she seemed to suggest in her submissions that what would establish beyond doubt the date of the installation of the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing was a record in some building book. In fact what was provided by the Street Management division of Transport for London seemed to be the precise equivalent of what she was requesting.
28. In the Notebook P.C. Smith recorded that when he arrived at the scene the Bus was straddling the Bus Crossing, with about a quarter of it to the south of the crossing.
29. Mr. Nyarko made two witness statements on behalf of Mrs. Maranowska, dated, respectively, 23 November 2005 and 27 February 2007.
30. In his witness statement dated 23 November 2005 Mr. Nyarko gave this account of the accident:-

"4. At approximately 3.30 p.m. on the date of the accident I was with a client cutting their hair. I was close to the large window, and had a clear view of the street. I saw a woman crossing over, although there were lights on the carriageway I did not see if they were Green or Red when she crossed, however the road was clear of any traffic.

5. The lady continued to walk over towards the bus lane, and crossed into the road, she probably got towards half way across the bus lane. At this point I heard a bus horn, but could not see a bus as it was outside of my line of vision. I instantly turned to get a closer look, the woman had heard the horn, and was scrambling to get out of the way of the bus, it was at this point that I saw the bus come into view, it was travelling very fast, and hit the woman and continued to travel some distance before it finally came to a stop.

…

7. In my opinion, I feel that this accident was the fault of the driver; he was driving too fast on a narrow bus lane. The woman had started crossing the road on the side of the driver, it was such a narrow road that he would have seen her as soon as she started crossing, however, she had already walked halfway across the road before he sounded his horn. Even after he had hit her, he had still not been able to stop the bus; I am a driver myself and feel that had the bus been travelling at the speed limit, he would have been able to stop the bus before hitting the woman."

31. In his second witness statement Mr. Nyarko added these details:-

"7. I remember that in this accident the bus sounded its horn for a long period of time, meaning that it was some distance away when the driver saw the claimant. The driver would have had a clear view and the weather was good. My view is that the bus driver was travelling at too fast a speed and therefore was unable to stop in time. Also, he might have been able to brake or slow down more rapidly. The pavement was busy with pedestrians. "

32. The evidence relied upon on behalf of the defendants for the purposes of the trial included witness statements prepared in some cases quite close in time to the accident, and in other cases rather later. The initial statements obtained on behalf of the defendants took the form of inviting witnesses to complete questionnaires. Those questionnaires appeared to have been distributed at the end of July 2003, for Mrs. Nevard told me that she had returned hers completed on 31 July 2003. However, the date 10 September 2003 appeared on that completed by Olivia Mamphrey. Her account was:-

"A woman walks into the road without looking – she takes approx 2 step. (If she had looked she would have seen bus approaching). The driver toots his horn she looks round & within seconds is hit by the bus."

33. Mr. Nevard gave an account in response to the request from the defendants. This was similar to the account which he later gave to the police:-

"Our bus was travelling south along the bus lane in High Road Tottenham and was just approaching Tescos just north of the junction with Broad Lane at about 2.45 pm on 26/7/2003. The pedestrian concerned appeared to be in a hurry and stepped out in front of our bus without looking to see if the bus lane was clear. The driver of our bus tried to brake but did not stand a chance as the bus was less than 20 yds away from the pedestrian when she stepped out into the bus lane at the pedestrian crossing. There was a loud thump as the bus ran over her before stopping just beyond the crossing."

34. Mrs. Nevard, in her answers to the defendants' questionnaire, stated that she did not know the speed of the Bus at the time of the accident, but she considered that the fault for it was attributable to Mrs. Maranowska because she stepped onto the Bus Crossing without giving the Bus enough room to stop. She went on:-

"My husband and I were travelling on the bus from Waltham Cross Bus Garage to Manor House. As the bus was travelling along the bus lane at Tottenham I saw a lady step out into the road very close to the bus. (She appeared in the lower part of the window so was only 1 – 2 car lengths away). I cried 'Oh no' as it was obvious we could not avoid her. The bus braked, but she disappeared from view before it came to a halt. The bus had obviously run over her. The engine was still running and passengers started to get off. The bus jolted as if trying to reverse. (This happened twice while people were getting off.) When we got off the bus [the next words illegible in the photocopy put before me] trapped under the wheel on the driver's side. As assistance had been called – I stayed on the pavement at the rear of the bus – the engine was still running and the driver was on board in the driver's seat. After the arrival of the emergency services and the police I gave my name and address as a witness.

It was not until I was on the pavement that I noticed that the bus had come to a halt across a pedestrian crossing. I was unaware of the lights at the time I first saw the lady in front of the bus."

35. Prior to the commencement of this action formal witness statements were prepared from Mr. Robinson, Mr. Nevard and Mrs. Nevard. Mr. Nevard signed his formal statement on 17 November 2003, as did Mrs. Nevard. Mr. Robinson signed his formal statement on 23 September 2005. The formal witness statement of each was to the same effect as the earlier, more contemporaneous statement. Mr. Robinson added these details to his earlier account:-

"9. At the same time as the lady got to the island I became aware of an oncoming double decker bus in the contraflow bus lane. Again, I wasn't taking any particular notice of the bus. It wasn't going fast and there wasn't anything about the way that it was being driven to draw my attention.

10. With both the bus and the lady still in view, when she got to the kerb edge of the bus lane I can only describe her momentarily stopping following which she lifted her head and without turning either to left or right, as if in the one move, she stepped off the kerb immediately in front of the bus which could only have been a matter of feet away.

11. I heard the bus driver sound the horn, but it was already too late as the bus was more or less on top of the lady as soon as she stepped off the kerb and the bus driver did not have a chance.

…

14. I have been asked to comment upon the colour of the traffic lights facing the bus driver when the accident occurred. In this respect, whilst I was still waiting for my lights, i.e. the Northbound lights to change to green, being side on to the contraflow bus lane where the crossing was forwards and to my right, as the lights there only control the oncoming lane, I could not see what colour they were showing. I suspect that they work independently to those controlling the Northbound lanes."

36. Mr. Richardson made a formal statement which he signed on 18 August 2003. In this statement he gave a somewhat more extended account of events than he had given to P.C. Smith. The material part of the statement was to this effect:-

"9. Whilst it was dry, the sky was a little overcast and cloudy, but nonetheless there was clear visibility as I moved through the traffic lights at Monument Way into the contraflow bus lane, which is subject to a maximum speed of 20 mph.

10. With the bus lane being flanked on either side by kerbed railings, apart from where there are openings purposely left for vehicles to gain access to the shops etc., on the left hand side, I had a clear road ahead. That is to say that there were no other buses in front of me for at least a good distance, providing a clear view over a distance of at least 8 to 9 bus lengths, as I progressed at a speed something less than the 20 mph limit.

11. Approaching the light controlled pedestrian crossing, just before Tesco's, outside of which there is the bus stop, I was not aware of any groups or any particular large number of pedestrians either on the left nearside pavement or on the opposite right hand side of the road, using the crossing which marries up with that on the bus lane. In this respect the main crossing, i.e., for the 3 oncoming lanes to the right of the bus lane, operate I believe alternate to those controlling the bus lane in that when the main crossing lights are showing red against the traffic, those controlling the bus lane are on green.

12. Having had a good distance view of the bus lane lights whilst they had remained on green, as I approached I took my foot off the accelerator to cover the brake, taking account that I would need to slow down to pull up at the Tesco's bus stop just a short distance beyond and also in case the lights should change as I came up to them.

13. As I approached I was not conscious of any pedestrians on either side of the crossing and it was when I was only about 20' short of the crossing that I there became aware of a lady walking, at it appeared at normal speed, from right to left towards the kerb, who I could clearly see was looking in the opposite direction.

14. Sounding my horn to alert the pedestrian who was only about 1 step back from the kerb, this I followed by braking, having seen that she had taken no notice and was still looking in the opposite direction, as she stepped into the road in front of the bus.

15. Now braking as hard as I could, I was unable to stop as the pedestrian having, I would estimate, made 2 steps into the road before the bus hit her, impacted with the windscreen just to my side of centre. Thereafter, as she dropped out of view, I suspect the pedestrian was carried a short distance, with the front of the bus stopping about 10' beyond the crossing, by which time it was found that the pedestrian's legs had gone under the front of the bus and one, or possibly both, was now pinned to the ground by the front offside wheel."

37. Each of the witnesses from whose witness statement or statements I have quoted gave evidence at the trial and was cross-examined. In his or her oral evidence each witness essentially maintained the account which he or she had given in the relevant witness statement or statements.
38. Mrs. Maranowska in her cross-examination was perfectly convinced that the configuration of the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing at the time of her accident was not as they are now, but that there was a straight Pelican crossing directly over the three north-bound lanes and the Bus Lane, governed by one set of traffic lights, such that once a pedestrian had the encouragement of a green man indication it was safe to cross the whole of the road. Her view that there had been a change of the configuration so as to create the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing was not shared by any other witness. All of the other witnesses who gave evidence before me, including Mr. Nyarko, agreed that the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing as they presently exist were in place at the time of the accident to Mrs. Maranowska. That evidence was supported by the photographs taken of the scene of the accident and by the information provided by the Street Management division of Transport for London to which I have referred earlier in this judgment. In those circumstances I find that Mrs. Maranowska was in error as to her recollection of the layout of the crossing of the road at the point at which she had her accident on 26 July 2003. I hold that the layout at that time was the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing. The evidence indicated that additional railings have been provided since the accident, but that is not material to any issue which I have to decide.
39. Separate from the issue of the layout of the crossing of the road, but linked to it in the light of the evidence of Mrs. Maranowska in her English witness statement which I have quoted, is whether the traffic lights at the Bus Crossing were red against the Bus at the time of the accident. Only Mrs. Maranowska and Mr. Richardson gave direct evidence as to the state of these traffic lights at the moment of the accident. Mrs. Maranowska's oral evidence was to the effect that a green man indication was showing at the Bus Crossing when she set off across that part of the road. Mr. Richardson was definite in his evidence that the traffic lights were green in favour of buses using the Bus Lane.
40. It is material in considering the question of the state of the traffic lights at the Bus Crossing at the time of the accident to consider the evidence of the behaviour of Mrs. Maranowska immediately before she attempted to cross the Bus Crossing. While there were differences of detail in the accounts of various witnesses, for example Mr. Nevard thought that Mrs. Maranowska was walking hurriedly, while other witnesses thought that she was walking at a normal pace, all bar Mr. Nyarko were firm in expressing the view that Mrs. Maranowska was not looking where she was going and simply stepped out into the path of the Bus without attempting to see whether it was clear to do so. Mr. Robinson and Olivia Mamphrey both told me that Mrs. Maranowska was walking with her head down, and I accept that evidence. Mr. Nyarko told me in evidence what he had said in his first witness statement, namely that Mrs. Maranowska had walked about half way across the Bus Crossing – about 1.5 metres, or perhaps 2 paces – when he heard a bus horn, at which point she turned and tried to scramble back to safety on the traffic island between the Main Crossing and the Bus Crossing. While, having heard and seen Mr. Nyarko give evidence, I am confident that he was doing his best to assist the court by his evidence, I am equally confident, in the light of the evidence of the other witnesses, that he was mistaken in thinking that Mrs. Maranowska turned and tried to retreat to the traffic island when she heard the sound of the bus horn. I find that Mrs. Maranowska did not in fact look to see whether there was a green man indication in her favour before stepping out onto the Bus Crossing. In the result I accept the evidence of Mr. Richardson that the traffic lights at the Bus Crossing were green in favour of buses at the time the accident to Mrs. Maranowska occurred.
41. An issue potentially separate from that whether the traffic lights at the Bus Crossing were green in favour of buses at the time of the accident is that of the speed of the Bus being driven by Mr. Richardson at the time of the accident. Related to that issue is the further question of how far the Bus was from Mrs. Maranowska when she stepped out onto the Bus Crossing.
42. Mr. Nyarko told me in his oral evidence, as he had in his first witness statement, that he considered that the Bus was travelling very fast immediately before it hit Mrs. Maranowska. He also told me in his oral evidence at one point that he heard the horn sounded by Mr. Richardson continue for a long time. However, at other points in his oral evidence he said that he thought that the horn was sounded for two seconds, and that it was about a second between the horn being sounded and Mrs. Maranowska being hit. Mr. Nyarko told me in his oral evidence that the Bus carried on for the full length of the Bus (which Mr. Richardson told me in his oral evidence was at least 33 feet) after hitting Mrs. Maranowska. In addition, Mr. Nyarko told me that, notwithstanding his view as to the speed of the Bus, he considered that Mr. Richardson had had time to stop the Bus and thereby avoid hitting Mrs. Maranowska.
43. Mrs. Maranowska told me in her oral evidence that she considered that the Bus was driving fast because of the force with which it hit her and the fact that the windscreen of the Bus was broken by the impact.
44. Mr. Richardson confirmed during his cross-examination that he was driving at about 20 miles per hour as he came along the Bus Lane, but that as he approached the Bus Crossing he took his foot off the accelerator and covered the brake, both because he appreciated that the traffic lights at the Bus Crossing might change to red and because in any event he had to stop the Bus at the bus stop outside Tesco just the other side of the Bus Crossing. His evidence was that he saw Mrs. Maranowska on the kerb as he approached the Bus Crossing and sounded his horn because it looked as if she was about to step out in front of the bus, as, indeed, she did.
45. Mr. Nevard put the distance between the Bus and Mrs. Maranowska as she stepped onto the Bus Crossing at less than 20 yards. However, in cross-examination he accepted that he was not good at assessing distance. He was unable to estimate the speed at which the Bus was travelling as it approached the Bus Crossing.
46. Mrs. Nevard told me in her oral evidence that she first saw Mrs. Maranowska in the lower part of the front window of the upper deck of the Bus. She appeared to be very close. Mrs. Nevard just had time to exclaim, "Oh no", and Mrs. Maranowska disappeared from her view. Mrs. Nevard, from an exercise which she carried out a day or two later to assess the distance in front of the Bus which she could not see from a seated position in the front of the upper deck, estimated that Mrs. Maranowska could have been no more than one or two car lengths in front of the Bus when she saw her. Mrs. Nevard was unable to estimate the speed of the Bus as it approached the Bus Crossing, but said that it did not seem to be travelling particularly fast or particularly slowly. She considered that the Bus did not take long to stop after the impact.
47. Olivia Mamphrey told me in her oral evidence that she saw Mrs. Maranowska step onto the Bus Crossing directly in front of the Bus. She also was not able to estimate the speed of the Bus as it approached the Bus Crossing, but she thought that it was not being driven particularly fast or particularly slowly.
48. Mr. Robinson's oral evidence was that he thought that the Bus was travelling at no more than 20 miles per hour at the time of the accident, neither particularly fast nor particularly slowly. He considered that the Bus stopped fairly quickly after the impact, in a position perhaps 1.5 to 2 metres forwards of where it was shown in one of the photographs of the scene. It appeared that the photograph in question was taken after the bus had been reversed to free Mrs. Maranowska. The photograph in question showed the front wheels of the Bus slightly ahead of the traffic lights at the Bus Crossing, just over the indication on the road of the southerly limit of the Bus Crossing. This evidence was confirmed by the evidence in the Notebook written by P.C. Smith of the position of the Bus when he first saw it, and coincided with the evidence of Mr. Richardson that the front of the Bus stopped about 10 feet to the south of the Bus Crossing. Mr. Robinson told me that the horn of the Bus was blown at about the same time as the Bus hit Mrs. Maranowska, perhaps only a second before, but at a time when it was already too late to avoid an impact.
49. I find on the evidence that the Bus stopped after the impact in a position with the greater part of the bus blocking the Bus Crossing. Mr. Richardson had thus managed to stop the Bus within a matter of perhaps 5 metres after the Bus hit Mrs. Maranowska. That is important, because a vehicle travelling at 10 miles per hour covers 4.39 metres in one second, while a vehicle travelling at 20 miles per hour covers twice that distance. For Mr. Richardson to have been able to stop the Bus in the distance which I find that he did the Bus at the point of impact must have been travelling at no more than about 10 miles per hour. That circumstance supports the evidence of Mrs. Nevard, Olivia Mamphrey and Mr. Robinson, as well as that of Mr. Richardson himself, as to the speed at which the Bus was travelling as it approached the Bus Crossing. I accept that evidence. I reject the evidence of Mr. Nyarko and that of Mrs. Maranowska that the Bus was being driven at excessive speed as it approached the Bus Crossing.
50. The evidence of Mr. Nyarko given in court was that the Bus was at about the position where the second wording "BUS LANE" on the Bus Lane to the north of the Bus Crossing had been written in the road when Mrs. Maranowska stepped out onto the crossing. That location was shown on a photograph which was put in evidence. It was difficult from the photograph to estimate how far that wording was from the Bus Crossing. However, by scaling from the Drawing, assuming that the scale appropriate for the photocopy was 1/400, one could ascertain that the relevant wording was some 32 metres from the Bus Crossing. That assessment did not seem to be inconsistent with the photograph to which Mr. Nyarko referred. However, it is not easy to understand how Mr. Nyarko could see that far up the road from his position within the Hairdresser's, nor is it easy to reconcile Mr. Nyarko's evidence of seeing the Bus coming over such a distance with his evidence that his attention was not drawn to the Bus until the horn was sounded.
51. Mr. Nevard put Mrs. Maranowska less than 20 yards from the Bus when she stepped out. If, by that assessment, Mr. Nevard was seeking to say that Mrs. Maranowska was not quite as far, but almost as far, from the Bus as 20 yards, his evidence would seem to be inconsistent with that of Mr. Nyarko by a factor of almost two; that is to say, Mr. Nevard put the distance at almost half that suggested by Mr. Nyarko. However, on his own admission Mr. Nevard is not good at assessing distances, and account needs to be taken of that in evaluating his evidence on this point in the context of the other evidence.
52. A bus travelling at 20 miles per hour would cover 32 metres in 3.64 seconds. However, the Bus Crossing was just 3 metres wide – perhaps 4 paces. A person walking at a normal pace of about 4 miles per hour would cover the distance of 3 metres in 1.70 seconds. At 3 miles per hour it would take a pedestrian 2.27 seconds to walk 3 metres. It thus appears that if the Bus had indeed been in the place in which Mr. Nyarko put it at the time Mrs. Maranowska began to cross the Bus Crossing, she would have reached the other side safely before the Bus got to the crossing.
53. The other witnesses, of course, put the Bus much closer to the Bus Crossing when Mrs. Maranowska stepped into the path of the Bus. Mrs. Nevard put her 1 to 2 car lengths. The Highway Code treats a car length as about 4 metres. A vehicle travelling at 10 miles per hour covers 4 metres in just less than a second. The Highway Code statement of typical stopping distances starts only at 20 miles per hour, with no assessments for lower speeds, but indicates that at 20 miles per hour the stopping distance is of the order of 12 metres. These various calculations are consistent, as it seems to me, with the evidence of Mrs. Nevard, Mr. Robinson, Olivia Mamphrey and Mr. Richardson as to where the Bus was when Mrs. Maranowska stepped out, or appeared about to do so, with the horn being sounded and Mrs. Maranowska being hit almost at once. I accept that evidence. I find, therefore, that Mrs. Maranowska was about 6 metres from the front of the Bus when she stepped onto the Bus Crossing. At that distance from the Bus a collision was unavoidable.
54. The remaining issue is whether Mr. Richardson should have anticipated as he approached the Bus Crossing that Mrs. Maranowska would fail to observe the red man indication that she should not cross and also fail to look to see whether a bus was approaching. Mrs. Maranowska was at the time of the accident an adult lady of middle years, which is relevant simply because a driver perhaps should anticipate that elderly people may have some impairment of sight or hearing of which account needs to be taken, but which would not obviously be relevant in the case of Mrs. Maranowska. As I find, and contrary to the evidence of Mr. Nevard, she was not hurrying. She did, however, have her head down. That, and her failure to look towards possible oncoming buses in the Bus Lane, were the only reasons why attention might be drawn to her by a driver. Drivers must proceed with great care, especially in the presence of pedestrians who may be likely to wish to cross in the path of the driver. However, a driver is also entitled, in the ordinary case, to assume that pedestrians will comply with traffic lights, as will drivers. I accept the evidence of Mr. Richardson that his attention was not drawn to Mrs. Maranowska until the time he told me. In my judgment he was not negligent in not noticing her earlier or in not anticipating that a pedestrian would step out onto the Bus Crossing in contravention of a red indication that it was not safe to do so.
55. The unhappy circumstances of this case, as I find, are that Mrs. Maranowska, perhaps being distracted for some reason, was keeping her head down and not looking out for possible oncoming buses as she simply stepped out onto the Bus Crossing, having crossed the Main Crossing. Unfortunately, at the time she stepped out the Bus was so close to her that a collision could not be avoided. However, no blame attaches to Mr. Richardson or to the manner of his driving at the time of the accident, and so this action must be dismissed.