Rachid Afouzar v First Centrewest Buses Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Her Honour Judge Coe |
| Judgment Date | 23 October 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 3426 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 23 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ13X01567 |
[2014] EWHC 3426 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Her Honour Judge Coe QC
(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
Case No: HQ13X01567
Mr R Cartwright (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP) for the Claimant
Mr P Freeman (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 2 and 3 October 2014
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Her Honour Judge Coe QC:
Facts and Background
This is a claim for damages for personal injury arising out of a road traffic accident which occurred on 9th February 2012 at the junction of High Street Acton, and Steyne Road (Horn Lane), London. On 14.1.14 (p.14 in the bundle) it was ordered that liability be tried in advance of causation and quantum. In accordance with that Order I have heard evidence in relation to, and this judgment is in respect of, liability only.
The basic circumstances can be stated quite shortly. Much of the detail is agreed. To start with the junction itself: the High Street (the A4020) runs at this point pretty much along the west- east axis of the compass and Steyne Road (the A4000) (which becomes Horn Lane fairly soon after this junction and is referred to as Horn Lane on occasions in the evidence) runs into the junction from pretty much the north. Beyond this junction to the west, the High Street becomes known as the Uxbridge Road.
In advance of the junction there is one lane east bound on the High Street, but in the approach to the junction this becomes two lanes for traffic travelling east on the High Street and there are two lanes for traffic travelling west. There are 4 spurs to Steyne Road at the junction: the first (from east to west) is a slip lane for traffic coming from the east on the High Street to travel north; the second is for traffic from the west turning right to travel north; the third is for traffic travelling south wishing to turn to travel west on the high street; and the fourth is for traffic travelling south wishing to turn east. At each spur the traffic is controlled by traffic lights as is the traffic travelling in both directions on the high street. As depicted in the map on page 135 in the bundle there are pedestrian islands in the centre of the High Street and two triangular and one longer pedestrian island in the mouth of Steyne Road between each of these spurs.
At page 67 in the bundle is a statement from Mr Leonard Brown dated 4th March 2014. That statement is agreed. Mr Brown is a principal engineer employed by Transport for London. I shall refer to his evidence below, but beginning at page 74 of his statement he sets out the operational details of each of the phases of the traffic lights at this junction.
The Defendant's bus driver Mohamed Ahmed was driving a red double-decker bus (SN09 CDX) on the E3 route travelling from the Greenford Depot to Edensor Road in Chiswick. The approach of the bus to the junction is shown in the aerial view at page 136 in the bundle. Mr Ahmed drove along Gunnersbury Lane to the lights where he stopped because they were showing red. When they changed to green he performed a right turn to travel east along the High Street and approached the junction in the offside of the two lanes. The Claimant, a pedestrian, was walking at along the east side of Steyne Road, jogged over the first slip road and on to the easterly triangular traffic island and then picked up pace and set off to run across the eastbound lanes of the High Street when a collision occurred between him and the Defendants bus.
He suffered significant injuries including a head injury. He has no memory of the impact itself.
At the time of the collision which occurred at about 13.47, it was daylight and visibility was good. The road surface was dry. The traffic lights were working properly and there were no defects in the road markings, the road signs or the road surface. The speed limit on the High Street was 30 miles an hour.
By his Particulars of Claim which is at page 3 in the bundle the Claimant alleges that this accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant's driver. The specific allegations which were honed and developed over the course of the hearing are that Mr Ahmed: drove too fast in the circumstances; failed to observe the traffic lights; failed to stop at the traffic light; failed to observe and heed the presence of the Claimant; was not sufficiently alert on the day in question; and in the circumstances his driving fell below the standard of a reasonably competent bus driver.
These allegations are denied by the Defendant in its defence at page 7. The Defendant alleges that the incident was caused by the Claimant's negligence because he: failed to observe and heed the pedestrian crossing lights which were red against him; failed to stop at the kerb; failed to keep a proper lookout; failed to observe and heed the bus; ran into the road; ran in front of the bus; failed to obey the Highway Code; failed to remove his hood; and created a situation of danger in which a collision was inevitable. In the alternative the Defendant alleges that the Claimant was contributorily negligent.
It is not in dispute that the Claimant was himself negligent. In the closing submissions on his behalf, counsel for the Claimant accepted in full the allegations of contributory negligence pleaded against him. On the basis of the CCTV evidence he could not have argued against them. Thus he accepts that he was running, that he crossed the road against a red pedestrian light and that he did not look to his right or did not recognise the obvious presence of the bus. He contends however that the Defendant's driver was primarily negligent.
Apart from the lay witnesses, I heard evidence from the Claimant's road traffic reconstruction and investigation expert, Mr Hague and from the like expert for the Defendant, Mr Shephard. Significantly in this case I also have the benefit of some filmed footage taken from CCTV cameras positioned on the highway and also from the cameras positioned on the bus. The lead up to and the moment of the impact is shown. This evidence is helpful and important. Although it does not show a complete picture from the points of view of both Mr Ahmed and Mr Afouzar, it has enabled the experts to provide quite precise evidence about the speeds and distances involved.
Mr Ahmed was prosecuted in respect of this accident at Wimbledon Magistrates Court on a charge of driving without due care and attention. The case was dismissed at the end of the prosecution evidence on the basis that there was no case to answer. Some of the evidence in the bundle and some of the evidence to which I was referred is evidence which was obtained or prepared for those criminal proceedings.
Claimant's Evidence
The Claimant did not give evidence. He relies on the CCTV evidence. The only witness he called was Mr Hague. In his report Mr Hague outlined the facts to which I have already referred. From an analysis of the CCTV footage he sets out that at about five seconds before impact the Claimant was walking along the footway in Steyne Road and crossed the first spur with the pedestrian light green in his favour and red against the traffic. He crossed at a jog. He continued to jog towards the pedestrian crossing across the High Street and began to run just before he entered the road. The pedestrian signals were displaying a red man signal against him. He either did not check for traffic or if he did his view was obscured by his hood.
As Mr Ahmed approached the junction the lights were green in his favour but changed to amber before he reached the first stop line. Mr Ahmed did not stop for the amber light proceeded through the junction. In travelling the 120m from the Gunnersbury Lane junction to the first stop line the bus was travelling at a speed of about 26mph and a increased his speed slightly to 28 mph which was its speed about one and a half seconds before impact. There was then some braking so that the bus was travelling at about 26 mph at impact.
He concludes that allowing for a one second perception reaction time Mr Ahmed could have stopped the bus when the lights changed to amber by braking at an average rate of 0.3g which is firm breaking. 0.34g is undesirable braking. When cross examined he said that if the bus had been doing 30mph when the lights changed (when it was 33m away) he could have got through the lights before they turned red. If he had been 40 m away and taken one second to respond the required braking rate would have been 0.34g. The Claimant was within Mr Ahmed's potential sight from around five seconds prior to the impact. Had he seen him the Claimant's actions in jogging across the first crossing would not have warranted an emergency response but if Mr Ahmed had monitored the Claimant as he ran across the pedestrian island he could have been ready to apply emergency braking as he reached the kerb. Had he done so the collision would have been avoided either because the bus could have been stopped just prior to the impact or because the Claimant would have had time to cross in front of the bus. It is Mr Hague's view that at the time that the bus crossed the advanced stop line the lights had just turned red. He acknowledged that the frame by frame analysis he carried out to see the fading and illuminating of each light would be dramatically different from what a driver would see.
At page 138 Mr Hague has plotted the positions of the bus and the Claimant in the five seconds prior to impact and has plotted the Claimant's line of sight. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial