Landau v The Big Bus Company Ltd & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
- LADY JUSTICE BLACK
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerned a 2009 traffic accident involving a tourist bus, a VW Passat, and a scooter. The claimant, having sustained serious injury, claimed negligence against the drivers, which was dismissed. On appeal, the court upheld that the claimant was not visible to the defendants and that the defendants exercised reasonable care.
Judgment
Lord Justice Richards :
This appeal concerns a road traffic accident on Sunday 3 May 2009 near the junction of Pall Mall East and Cockspur Street in the area of Trafalgar Square, London. The roads form part of a one way system. At the junction is a set of traffic lights. The accident involved three vehicles which had come down Pall Mall East and, as was common ground at the trial, had stopped at the traffic lights. One was a tourist bus operated by the Big Bus Company Limited (the first defendant) and driven by Mrs Dean. It was in the outside (right hand) lane. The second was a VW Passat motor car driven by Mr Zeital (the second defendant). It was in the inside (left hand) lane. The third was a 125 cc motor scooter ridden by Mr Landau (the claimant). The position of the scooter at the lights was a central issue at the trial. When the lights changed to green the vehicles moved forward and started to negotiate the sharp left-hand turn into Cockspur Street. The claimant’s scooter became trapped between the rear nearside of the bus and the rear offside of the car before any of the vehicles had completed the turn. Although the bus and the car stopped very quickly, the claimant sustained a serious injury to his right leg which subsequently necessitated a below-knee amputation.
The claimant’s claim in negligence against the two defendants was the subject of a trial of liability in the Queen’s Bench Division before Foskett J. For reasons given in a judgment handed down on 7 October 2013 (see [2013] EWHC 3281 (QB) ), the judge dismissed the claim. The claimant brings this appeal against the judge’s order giving effect to that decision.
The judgment below
Reference should be made to Foskett J’s judgment for a fuller description of the general background, the evidence and the judge’s detailed factual findings.
In summary, the claimant’s case at trial was that when the vehicles were stationary at the traffic lights, the bus driven by Mrs Dean was the first vehicle in the outside lane, the VW Passat driven by Mr Zeital was the second vehicle in the inside lane (i.e. with one other car between it and the lights), and the claimant’s motor scooter, whilst also in the inside lane, was in the gap between the offside of the VW Passat and the nearside of the bus. What he said about the respective positions of the three vehicles was crystallised in a sketch plan prepared by him prior to trial in response to a request for further information. He contended that