Interesting case on liability for Traffic Accidents

Many people believe that the courts will necessarily follow to the letter the provisions of the Highway Code. A recent case shows that whilst the code is always useful for a court it is not necessarily determinative of liability.

In the case in question, Smith v  Kempson (2011),  a motorist was in collision with a motorbike. The motorist was turning right from a side road onto a main road, and as is often the case, her view was obstructed by some by parked cars.

The interesting thing about this case, and the motorist may have been liable anyway using the Highway Code rules, was that the Judge specifically took into account evidence that the motorist followed the route in question regularly, she was familiar with the area and should have been fully aware of the dangers and need for extra caution. The Court therefore decided that the error was on her side.

In addition, the case reiterates that there are no definitive rules on liability in the situation where a car is attempting to turn onto a major road from a side road and that relevant evidence will be take into account all factors such as speed and actions of both parties involved in the accident, knowledge of the area and so on and so forth.

Don’t forget also that in this area of law as with negligence cases generally and some other areas of law also, not every case is won or lost in a black and white sense. It is common for a court to find that both parties are partially at fault and to apportion liability accordingly.