Anthony Sullivan reviews the duties of motorists to pedestrians
Recently in the case of Belka v Prosperini [2011] EWCA Civ 623, [2011] All ER (D) 263 (May), the Court of Appeal challenged the received wisdom with regard to how liability is apportioned in running down accidents in a judgment that will be welcomed by drivers and their insurers. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the first instance judge’s finding that he was two-thirds to blame for the accident in which he was run down as he took a chance trying to cross a dual carriageway before an oncoming car.
Background
It is trite law that pedestrians and motorists owe each other a duty to exercise due care (Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway Company Limited [1951] AC 601) and that motorists have to exercise a particularly high degree of vigilance towards young, elderly, disabled, infirm or foolish people (Watson v Skuse [2001] EWCA Civ 1158). As a result, the position of the court has traditionally been that motorists are required to keep
