Charlotte Rainford (A Protected Party, by her Father and Litigation Friend Ian Rainford) v Kay Lawrenson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Patterson |
| Judgment Date | 15 April 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 1188 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: 3MA90028 |
| Date | 15 April 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 1188 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
LIVERPOOL DISTRICT REGISTRY
Liverpool Civil and Family Court,
35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX
Mrs Justice Patterson
Case No: 3MA90028
Winston Hunter Q.C and Angela Piers (instructed by Potter Rees Ltd) for the Claimant
Stephen Worthington QC (instructed by Greenwoods) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 8th and 9th April 2014
Approved Judgment
Introduction
On the 13 th March 2007, at about 8 am, Charlotte Rainford was walking, with her sister Vicky, from her home to a bus stop on the A588 otherwise known as Carr Lane in Hambleton, Lancashire to catch a bus to school. Charlotte was aged 14 years and 8 months and Vicky was 16 years and 4 months. As Charlotte crossed from the west side to the east side of Carr Lane to reach the bus stop the claimant was knocked over by the defendant, Kay Lawrenson (now Collinson), who was driving her Ford Fiesta motorcar. Charlotte sustained severe injuries including a serious head injury.
On the 2 nd April 2013 District Judge Hovington ordered that the preliminary issue of liability be tried. The trial came before me on the 7 th April 2014.
I have to determine two related issues:-
i) Primary liability;
ii) If appropriate, contributory negligence.
Legal framework
Given the fact sensitive nature of the case it is not necessary to embark upon an extensive review of legal authorities. In Foskett v Mistry [1984] 1 RTR 1 May LJ said,
"The root of this liability is negligence, and what is negligence depends on the facts with which you are to deal. If the possibility of the danger emerging is reasonably apparent then to take no precaution is negligent: but if the possibility of the danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man, then there is no negligence in not having taken extraordinary precautions."
I have to apply to Ms Lawrenson's actions the standard of care which ought, in the circumstances as they are found to be, to be expected of a reasonably competent and alert motorist. In so doing it is important to ensure that I do not replace that test with the standard of the ideal driver. It is also important to ensure that I am not influenced by what is sometimes referred to as 20/20 hindsight: see Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704 at [5].
In carrying out the exercise it is important that I bear in mind that, as was recognised in Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA 801,
"A motorcar is potentially a dangerous weapon." [20]
In determining whether a child is at fault "the standard by which a child's conduct is to be measured is not that to be expected of a reasonable adult but that reasonably to be expected of a child of the same age, intelligence and experience": see Toropdar v D (a Minor by the Official Solicitor as litigation friend) [2009] EWHC 2997at [12] where Clarke J (as he then was) quoted from a series of earlier judgments which distilled the relevant principles.
Undisputed facts
The claimant was unable to give evidence herself at the trial.
Carr Lane in Hambleton is a two lane single carriageway road. The carriageway width is some 6.8 metres wide with each lane of about 3.4 metres. The surface is well maintained asphalt.
At the accident scene the road runs through mainly a rural area with occasional residential properties along its length. It has a general north to south orientation running between Hambleton in the south and Stalmine in the north.
There is a central hazard warning line which divides the road into two lanes. At the time of the accident the national speed limit of 60 miles an hour for passenger cars applied.
Travelling north from Hambleton vehicles on Carr Lane pass through a series of bends with the last to the left. At about that left bend is a property known as Nanny Pam's, a children's nursery. That is about 180 metres south of the collision area.
Emerging from the left bend there is clear visibility in a northerly direction of a straight stretch of road. From the point of emergence it is about 100 metres to the bus stop on the eastern side of Carr Lane. At all material times that had a bus shelter. The stop and shelter are immediately to the north of Sower Carr Lane.
On the western side of Carr Lane is a bus stop for northbound buses. That is about 20 metres further north than the bus stop on the eastern side. At the time of the accident there was no bus shelter on the western side. The western bus stop itself was to the south of a tarmaced area which led to a dropped kerb onto Carr Lane. That dropped kerb was the northern most of two dropped kerbs on the western side. The southerly dropped kerb is evident on the photographs as possibly leading to a field access and is some distance to the south of the bus stop. Except where interrupted by the dropped kerbs there was a tarmac footway behind a grass verge which was continuous on the western side of Carr Lane.
Directly opposite the northern dropped and on the eastern side of Carr Lane was a reciprocal dropped kerb. From there was tarmaced path which led to the bus stop on the eastern side. With the exception of that tarmac the eastern side of Carr Lane in this location beyond the kerb was grass verge.
Changes to the configuration of the bus stops have occurred since the accident in that the location of the bus stop on the western side has been moved and a shelter provided. The speed limit on Carr Lane had been reduced to 40 mph.
Factual evidence at trial
I heard evidence at trial from Vicky Rainford, Beth and Thomas Chadwick, the defendant and Shelley Crompton. Also in evidence, and relied upon, was the police accident investigation report.
Vicky Rainford said that it was the first sunny day of the year and that she and her sister decided to walk to the bus stop from their home to catch the bus to Hodgson School in Poulton-Le-Fylde where they were pupils. They were each wearing school uniform which included a blue blazer, a navy blue skirt and blue and yellow tie. She was about 5 ft 2ins. Charlotte was then slightly shorter. They met up with their friends Thomas and Beth Chadwick who lived on the same road. They were wearing school uniform which consisted of a burgundy jumper with either grey pants or skirt. They were very familiar with the route as it was one they took most days.
Sometimes, if it was raining, they would be taken to school. Vicky knew that the road was busy and that vehicles drove fast along it and so that they needed to proceed with care. She was familiar with the Green Cross Code and, in particular, that part where, in dealing with crossing the road, it says to "stop before you get to the kerb where you can see if anything is coming. Do not get too close to the traffic. If there is no pavement, keep back from the edge of the road but make sure you can still see approaching traffic".
Vicky agreed that it did not say that one could step into the road and that the reason for that was because it was a dangerous thing to do. She confirmed that Charlotte was also aware of the contents of the Green Cross Code.
Her oral evidence was that the group walked along Carr Lane to the bus stop on the western side. It was common practice for all four to cross the road to the bus shelter on the eastern side of Carr Lane particularly if the weather was poor. She and Charlotte would catch their school bus from there and Beth and Thomas would cross back again as their bus to their school, St Aidan's, always arrived after the bus to Hodgson School.
On the day in question Thomas Chadwick decided to stay on the same side of the road as the bus stop from where he would catch his bus. The three girls walked on the tarmac area up to the dropped kerb. They looked to the right and saw nothing coming. They then stepped into the road. Charlotte was on Vicky's left, one step ahead of Beth and herself. Beth was on her right.
The girls stopped in that position to allow two cars travelling in the opposite carriageway to pass. When that had happened Vicky looked to her right and saw a vehicle approaching. She pulled Beth back to the pavement. When she saw the car she believed that the car was approaching the southerly dropped kerb on the western side of Carr Lane. She was not able to say how fast the vehicle was moving.
As she and Beth stepped back she saw Charlotte from the corner of her eye move forward. Charlotte ran forward and the car swerved towards the centre of the road. She thought the impact was towards the central white line of the road.
Vicky accepted that, with the passage of time, memory generally fades. She had given a statement to the police on the 3 rd April 2007 in the presence of her father when she did not feel pressured. In that statement she said that the four had walked along the pavement towards the bus stop.
"Charlotte and myself stopped and were checking the road to make sure it was safe to cross, Tom and Beth were stood there they did not need to cross. Charlotte was stood on my left and we were both facing the road. We were stood there for what seemed like a few minutes, being unable to cross due to the traffic being busy. I recall a pinkish/purple car coming from the Hambleton direction. The car was travelling slower than the majority of the other traffic. It was definitely going slower than the 60 mph limit. In the other lane there were two other cars both travelling towards Hambleton village and were going too fast for us to cross before them so we delayed crossing. Without warning Charlotte walked into the road but I didn't see her until I saw and heard the purple car slam its brakes on and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Contributory Negligence in the Twenty‐First Century: An Empirical Study of First Instance Decisions
...[2014] EWHC 1672 (QB); (359) MacLeodvCommissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 977 (QB); (360)Rainford vLawrenson [2014] EWHC 1188 (QB); (361) West Sussex CC vFuller[2015] EWCA Civ 189; (362) Groves vStudley [2014] EWHC 1522 (QB); (363)Terminal Contenitori Porto di Genova SpA......