The speeding motorcyclist and the slowly emerging van - who was to blame?
Posted by Jeremy Horton on 24th January 2012
A recent High Court decision had to consider where the fault lay between a speeding motorcyclist and a slowly emerging van. In the resulting road traffic accident the motorcyclist suffered head injuries and other serious multiple injuries for which he sought compensation.
In Ringe v Eden Springs Ltd (12/1/2012) the motorcyclist was established on the main road-Meridian Way, Enfield, Middlesex- which was a single carriageway. He was estimated to be travelling substantially in excess of the 40 mph speed limit at between 60 to 70 mph. He overtook an articulated HGV using the hatched area that divided the carriageways. At the same time the van driver emerged from the junction onto this carriageway, intending to turn right. As he began to pull out he saw the HGV approaching, about 60 metres away, and judged rightly there was enough space and time to safely pull out before the HGV reached him. Tragically he could not at that time see the overtaking motorcyclist, which was then obscured by the HGV. The motorcyclist in turn could only see the emerging van after he had overtaken the HGV. By this time it was too late into break or swerve to avoid the inevitable collision, in which the motorcyclist sustained serious personal injuries, for which he claimed compensation.
The judge held both the motorcyclist and the van driver were to blame. The van driver was negligent, because he had failed to wait until he had a clear view of the road to his right before pulling out. However, the motorcyclist was found to be far more to blame. He was found negligent for substantially exceeding the speed limit. In addition he was found negligent for wrongly using the hatched area for overtaking and for overtaking when it was unsafe to do so, because of the approaching junction.
The motorcyclist will obtain compensation for his personal injuries, but because of his high degree of negligence his compensation was slashed by 80% for contributory negligence.
Comment: where motorcyclists carry out unsafe overtaking manoeuvres near a junction they are usually found more to blame than the motorist emerging at the junction. When you combine this with travelling far in excess of the speed limit you can start to understand why the finding of contributory negligence was so high. However the motorcyclist might feel aggrieved that the van driver was not found slightly more to blame than 20%. The emerging van driver apparently knew motorcyclists sometimes overtook in this location. Yet he not only chose to pull out in front of a very large obstruction (the HGV), but also failed to sound his horn or wind down his window to listen out for any approaching motorcyclist that might be hidden by the HGV. Some might say a finding of 70/30 would have been fairer.
If you or one of your family is a motorcyclist injured in a road traffic then please contact us for free advice on making a compensation claim.
