Mr Craig Streeter v Mr Darren Lee Hughes (First Defendant) The Motor Insurers Bureau (Second Defendant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Jeremy Baker |
| Judgment Date | 20 September 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 2841 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 20 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ11X02932 |
[2013] EWHC 2841 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Warwickshire Justice Centre,
Leamington Spa
The Honourable Mr Justice Jeremy Baker
Case No: HQ11X02932
Mr. John Leighton Williams QC and Ms. Rhiannon Jones (instructed by Harris Cartier Solicitors) for the Claimant
Mr. Stephen Grime QC (instructed by Weightmans Solicitors) for the Second Defendant
Craig Streeter ("the claimant") was born on 9.8.90. On 1.9.04, when he was 14 years of age, he was injured in a road traffic accident when, as a cyclist, he was involved in a collision with a motor car being driven by Darren Hughes ("the first defendant"), who at that time was 35 years of age, (DOB 30.8.69). As a result of that accident the claimant suffered a spinal cord injury which has rendered him tetraplegic. The first defendant was uninsured, hence the involvement of The Motor Insurers' Bureau ("the second defendant").
On 5.8.11 the claimant commenced a claim against the first and second defendants for damages in respect of personal injuries, loss and damage caused by the alleged negligence of the first defendant arising out of the accident. The claim has been defended by the defendants, albeit the second defendant has had conduct of the litigation. Liability is denied, alternatively contributory negligence is alleged. Quantum of damages, if liability is established, is in dispute.
Liability
Evidence
The accident occurred at just after 18.00 on Wednesday 1.9.04 on Knolton Way, Wexham, near Slough. This comprises a single carriageway, with one lane of travel in each direction. It is agreed by all that it was a fine and bright early summer's evening. At that time the first defendant was driving his Renault 19 1.4 RN motor car, registration number K628 UKL in an easterly direction along Knolton Way. As he drove around a shallow right hand bend he approached the area of the road between the turning to Berryfields on his offside and Welden on his nearside. It was whilst he was in this area that the claimant, who had been riding his bicycle in a westerly direction along the near side pavement of Knolton Way, cycled onto the road and collided with the first defendant's motor car. As a result of this collision the claimant and his bicycle were thrown into the air and landed further down Knolton Way towards the junction with Welden. The first defendant bringing his motor car to a halt further down Knolton Way just passed its junction with Welden.
The emergency services attended the scene. PC Parratt, the police collision investigator, arriving at 19.50. By this time the claimant had been taken to hospital and a Vauxhall Astra motor car, which, at the time of the collision, was being driven by Renee Hoadley along Knolton Way in a westerly direction, had been driven from the scene. Otherwise, the remaining motor vehicles on Knolton Way were believed to have been parked in the same locations which they were at the time of the accident. These being a white Peugeot Boxer motor van and 2 motor cars parked along the grass verge on the north side of Knolton Way, together with a blue Ford Galaxy motor car and a series of other motor cars parked along the edge of the road on the south side of Knolton Way. There being a significant gap between the white van and the first of the 2 motor cars, an Audi motor car, and a larger gap accommodating a bus halting space between the Ford Galaxy motor car and the remaining motor cars. All of this being shown in a series of photographs which were taken by PC Parratt when he first attended at the scene, and which are to be found in the trial bundle of photographs.
PC Parratt subsequently placed 3 police markers on Knolton Way as shown in those photographs. There is no dispute that marker 2 is located where an area of blood was found, which is believed to be have emanated from the claimant's head and therefore indicates the location of where he came to rest after the collision. Equally there is no dispute that marker 3 is located where a piece of the registration plate from the Renault motor car was found, which is believed to be where it fell after the registration plate was broken in the course of the collision.
However, although the location of marker 1 is easily identified in the photographs, there is considerable controversy as to what it was intended to mark. It is contended on behalf of the claimant that it marks the actual location of the most westerly piece of glass emanating from the windscreen of the Renault motor car which was broken in the course of the collision. Thus the location of the piece of glass across the width of the road can be discerned. On the other hand it is contended on behalf of the defendants that it does not mark the actual location of any piece of physical evidence, but only marks the level along the road of the most westerly piece of glass emanating from the nearside headlight of the Renault motor car which was broken in the course of the collision. Thus the location of the piece of glass across the width of the road cannot be discerned. Although PC Parratt took close up photographs of the area around markers 2 and 3, he did not do so in relation to the area around marker 1, such that this dispute is not able to be resolved by reference to the photographs themselves.
The claimant has no recollection of the collision itself and was therefore not able to assist the court as to its circumstances.
The first defendant provided a brief first account of the collision to the police when they attended at the scene soon after it had occurred (Trial bundle page 306). He stated that he had been driving along the road at no more than 30mph, when he heard a loud bang and the windscreen of his motor car broke. He said that he had not braked before the collision as he hadn't seen the claimant on his bicycle prior to the collision. He said that he was insured to drive at the time.
The first defendant was interviewed under caution by the police on 25.10.04. In the meantime he had provided them with a certificate of insurance which purported to show that he was insured to drive at the time of the collision. Subsequent investigations revealed that this certificate was false and that the first defendant was uninsured at the time of the collision. At the High Wycombe and Beaconsfield Magistrates' Court on 11.4.11 he pleaded guilty to an offence of using a certificate of insurance with intent to deceive, contrary to S.173(1)(a) of The Road Traffic Act 1988, and was fined. However he was not prosecuted for any road traffic offence arising out of the manner of his driving at the time of the collision.
In the course of his interview, the first defendant said that if he had been doing any more than 30mph as he approached the scene of the collision he would have slowed down as he recalled a motor car approaching him in the opposite direction and there were motor cars parked on the offside of the road. He therefore gauged his speed at between 25 – 30mph and said that as he had been brought up on the estate and still lived there, he was aware of the need to avoid oncoming motor vehicles, by driving along the nearside of his carriageway and believed he had done so. He reiterated that he had not seen the claimant prior to the collision, as the first matter of which he was aware was the impact on the left hand side of his windscreen. He said that as a result of this he had moved his body to the right in order to avoid being hit with glass and had slammed one of his feet on what he thought was the brake pedal, but now realises must have been the clutch pedal.
The first defendant provided a witness statement to those representing the second defendants dated 10.9.10. He stated that he had been driving since the age of 17 and had only had one minor accident at the age of 18. He said that he was on his way to work and was travelling along Knolton Way at about 30mph. He said that he wouldn't have been doing any more than this, as not only is he aware that due to the presence of motor vehicles parked on the offside of the road oncoming motor vehicles often approach along the middle of the road, but he is aware that a number of children live in the vicinity. He said that as he approached the right hand bend in the road he began to slow down by taking his foot off the accelerator pedal. As he got to the gates to the old people's home prior to the offside junction with Berryfields he saw the oncoming motor car, so he moved over to the near side of his carriageway. He was travelling at about 25mph when, as he was adjacent to the white Peugeot Boxer motor van on the nearside grass verge, he heard a loud bang and he was showered with glass inside his car. It was at this point he moved his body towards the right and sought to put his foot on the brake pedal, but missed it and put it on the clutch pedal and therefore didn't manage to bring his motor car to a halt until he was just passed the nearside junction with Welden. He got out of his vehicle and saw that he had driven into a cyclist. After this a woman had approached him and told him that the collision hadn't been his fault.
In a further witness statement provided to those representing the second defendants dated 25.1.12, the first defendant said that at the time of the accident he was on his way to work at Heathrow Airport. He said that he was normally able to complete that journey in about 20 minutes and was not in any hurry as he was not due to commence work until 7pm. Indeed prior to the accident he had just called in at a local newsagent to purchase a newspaper. He believed that immediately after the collision, and as a result of twisting his body away from the direction in which the broken...
To continue reading
Request your trial