The family of a pedestrian who was knocked down and tragically killed have established liability to receive compensation against the driver of the vehicle that ran him down. An accident occurred on 21st June 2014 at approximately 1am when the deceased was crossing the A45 after an evening out. The speed limit of the road was 40mph and the defendant driver was driving at a speed of approximately 86mph. The deceased was killed instantly and primary liability was conceded but it was alleged that the deceased was also partly to blame and was contributorily negligent.

At a hearing on 24th and 25th April 2018 in the High Court in the case of CC v TD to consider the arguments of contributory negligence the Judge decided that the deceased pedestrian was not to blame. The defendant had argued that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence in two respects. First the deceased should have used a pedestrian crossing which was located 87.25 metres further up the road and had crossed when it was unsafe to do so. Secondly the deceased should have observed the approach of the defendants vehicle and should not have crossed in front of its path. The Judge agreed that it is prudent for a pedestrian to use a designated crossing point but it does not follow that a failure to do so constitutes negligence per se. Much will depend upon the construction of the carriageway, the volume of traffic, the time of day, lighting and visibility. Given that the accident occurred at about 1am it is virtually certain that the volume of traffic would have been light. The road was well illuminated. In these circumstances the deceased had not acted unreasonably by not using the puffin crossing.

As to the second allegation, the deceased had been drinking, but the mere fact that he was intoxicated does not expose him to criticism. His actions are to be judged by reference to those of a sober person. The Judge decided that a sober person could not have appreciated that the defendant was travelling at more than twice the speed limit. It would be reasonable to presume that any vehicle was travelling broadly within the speed limit. Even if the deceased was guilty of a degree of inadvertence it did not in the Judges opinion amount to negligence.

In the circumstances the judge was satisfied that the accident was caused wholly by the negligent driving of the defendant and that the deceased was not contributorily negligent.