Christian v South East London And Kent Bus Company
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER
- LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a 2008 incident, Miss Jade Christian was injured when a bus suddenly braked. She claimed the bus driver, Mr. Adepeju Lawal, was negligent. The court reviewed evidence including CCTV footage and determined there was no negligence as an emergency stop was necessitated by another vehicle cutting in front of the bus. The appeal argued for earlier braking opportunities, but the court upheld the finding, emphasizing the standard of drivers in emergencies and the appellate court's deference to trial court fact-finding.
Judgment
Lady Justice Gloster :
This is an appeal against the judgment of His Honour Judge Birtles dated 5 March 2013, in which he dismissed a claim for damages for personal injury which the appellant, Miss Jade Christian, unfortunately suffered when the respondent’s double decker bus, driven by its employee, a Mr Adepeju Lawal, braked suddenly. The appellant was thrown forward and another passenger fell on her. As a result of the incident, Miss Christian suffered a back injury and fibromyalgia. The trial before His Honour Judge Birtles was limited to the issue of liability and, in particular, whether the driving of Mr Lawal was negligent, with the result that the respondent was in breach of its duty of care to the appellant. Issues arising on the pleadings relating to contributory negligence and special damage were left over to another date, if they arose.
The judge heard oral evidence from the appellant and from Mr Lawal. He also had evidence in the form of CCTV footage taken by the bus’ on-board cameras, as well as still images taken from that footage. We have also seen the CCTV footage and the stills.
The bus was being driven along Bromley High Street when the incident occurred at approximately 16.40.13 on 19 September 2008. So far as the CCTV footage was concerned the critical period, as the judge correctly identified, was from 16.40.07 to 16.40.13. The appellant’s pleaded case was that she was standing near to the front of the bus, looking out of the front window, when the bus approached a queue of standing traffic without slowing down, and then suddenly performed an emergency stop.
The Defence denied negligent driving on the part of the driver. The judge summarised the pleaded position in paragraph 3 of the judgment as follows,
“The defence denies: that the Defendant's bus driver did not approach a queue of traffic in front of him without slowing down, but admits that he was forced to perform an emergency braking manoeuvre. The Defence then sets out the circumstances in which it is averred that the emergency braking had to take place, and it is specifically averred that a vehicle, referred to as "the red vehicle", which had been travelling in the nearside lane, suddenly and without warning attempted to cut in front of the Defendant's correctly-proceeding bus. The Defendant's bus driver had no alternative but to perform an emergency braking manoeuvre and attempted to move his bus to the right in order to avoid a collision with the red vehicle,