Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4001300202 |
| Date | 01 April 1940 |
| Published date | 01 April 1940 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Recent Judicial Decisions
Is AREFUGE
PART
OF A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ?
Wilkinson v. Chetham-Strode
IT
will be remembered that
just
over a year ago the Court of
Appeal in Chisholm v. London Passenger Transport Board
(1939, 1
K.B.
426) held that there was no breach of the
Pedestrian Crossing Places (Traffic) Provisional Regulations,
1935,
if
amotorist is unable to avoid a collision with a pedes-
trian who suddenly steps on to the crossing. Where a pedes-
trian, who has crossed by a pedestrian crossing from the kerb
on to a street refuge in the centre of the road, walks from the
refuge into the course of a motor vehicle, does the same
principle apply?
In
other words, is the pedestrian to be
regarded as being on the crossing during the whole time he is
making his way across the road, including that which he
spends on the crossing, or is the refuge no part of the crossing,
so that when he steps from it on to the other half of the crossing
he is legally in the same position as if he had suddenly walked
from the footpath into the
road?
This
interesting and highly practical question was con-
sidered by Asquith,
J.,
in an action for damages for personal
injuries brought by a pedestrian, a
Mr.
Wilkinson, against a
motorist, a Miss Chetham-Strode. Common sense would
suggest that a refuge has been
put
into the centre of a road to
enable pedestrians to halt there in safety and survey the
oncoming traffic. Consequently amotorist would be likely to
assume that apedestrian who was on a refuge would not step
off it without regard to vehicles approaching the crossing. If,
however, the plaintiff was right in the present case, he could
treat the refuge as if it were non-existent and claim immunity
once he had, as it was
put
in Chisholm's case, " stepped fairly
133
To continue reading
Request your trial