Rainford v Lawrenson
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On 13 March 2007, 14-year-old Charlotte Rainford was hit by a car driven by Kay Lawrenson while crossing Carr Lane in Lancashire to catch her school bus. The collision left Charlotte with severe injuries, including a serious head injury. The preliminary issue of liability was tried on 7 April 2014. The court held the defendant primarily liable, citing her failure to keep a proper lookout and take appropriate steps. However, the court found contributory negligence on Charlotte's part and assessed it at 50%.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Patterson :
Introduction
On the 13 th March 2007, at about 8 am, Charlotte Rainford was walking, with her sister Vicky, from her home to a bus stop on the A588 otherwise known as Carr Lane in Hambleton, Lancashire to catch a bus to school. Charlotte was aged 14 years and 8 months and Vicky was 16 years and 4 months. As Charlotte crossed from the west side to the east side of Carr Lane to reach the bus stop the claimant was knocked over by the defendant, Kay Lawrenson (now Collinson), who was driving her Ford Fiesta motorcar. Charlotte sustained severe injuries including a serious head injury.
On the 2 nd April 2013 District Judge Hovington ordered that the preliminary issue of liability be tried. The trial came before me on the 7 th April 2014.
I have to determine two related issues:-
Primary liability;
If appropriate, contributory negligence.
Legal framework
Given the fact sensitive nature of the case it is not necessary to embark upon an extensive review of legal authorities. In Foskett v Mistry [1984] 1 RTR 1 May LJ said,
“The root of this liability is negligence, and what is negligence depends on the facts with which you are to deal. If the possibility of the danger emerging is reasonably apparent then to take no precaution is negligent: but if the possibility of the danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man, then there is no negligence in not having taken extraordinary precautions.”
I have to apply to Ms Lawrenson’s actions the standard of care which ought, in the circumstances as they are found to be, to be expected of a reasonably competent and alert motorist. In so doing it is important to ensure that I do not replace that test with the standard of the ideal driver. It is also important to ensure that I am not influenced by what is sometimes referred to as 20/20 hindsight: see Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704 at [5].
In carrying out the exercise it is important that I bear in mind that, as was recognised in Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA 801 ,
“A motorcar is potentially a dangerous weapon.” [20]
In determining whether a child is at fault “the standard by which a child’s conduct is to be measured is not that to be expected of a reasonable adult but that reasonably to be expected of a child of the same age, intelligence and experience”: see Toropdar v D (a Minor by the Official Solicitor as litigation friend) [2009] EWHC 2997 at [12] where Clarke J (a