Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704
This English case considers issues of liability and contributory
negligence where a pedestrian steps out into the road and is hit by
a vehicle. Mr Stewart had been returning home with a friend in the
early hours of a Saturday morning after consuming 'between five and
seven pints'. It was conceded that he was drunk, but not so drunk
that he could not walk, he was described by a witness as
"mobile but stumbling". Mr Stewart was sitting at a bus
stop talking with a friend when, for no apparent reason, he stood
up and ran into the roadway, into the path of a car being driven by
the unfortunate Mr Glaze. Mr Stewart suffered catastrophic head
injuries and was left in a persistent vegetative state. The judge,
Mr Justice Coulson, noted the following:-
"The starting point must be ... that the driver behind the
wheel of a car is in charge of a potentially dangerous weapon and
that, in an ordinary case, any calculation of contributory
negligence must always favour the pedestrian over the driver.
Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Eagle v Chambers
[2003], it is not uncommon for the starting point for the
assessment of contribution to be 60 / 40 against the driver. As
Lady Justice Hale (as she then was) made plain in Eagle, it is rare
indeed for a pedestrian to be found more responsible than a driver
unless the pedestrian has suddenly moved into the path of an
oncoming vehicle. But that is exactly what happened here. Moreover,
this is not a case of a young claimant or a claimant acting
inadvertently. This is a case where the collision was the direct
result of the claimant's deliberate actions. It was Mr Stewart who
was drunk and acting inexplicably; it was Mr Stewart who got up
from his seat and, without a word of explanation, walked to the
kerb and ran into the road. He acted in a wholly unsafe and
irrational way. On the other hand, even on the assumption of
negligence, Mr Glaze fell below the relevant standard only in the
last one or two seconds before the accident."
The court ruled that there was no liability on the part of Mr
Glaze, but if there had been then contributory negligence on the
part of Mr Stewart would have amounted to 75%. The judge repeated
the helpful comments of Lord Justice Laws in Ahanonu v South
East London & Kent Bus Company Limited [2008], who noted
that:-
"…there is sometimes a danger in cases of negligence that
the court may evaluate the standard of care owed by the defendant
by reference to fine considerations elicited in the leisure of the
court room, perhaps with the liberal use of hindsight. The
obligation thus constructed can look more like a guarantee of the
claimant's safety than a duty to take reasonable care."
This case does not constitute new law, but it is a useful
illustration of the common sense approach that is taken by the
courts where a drunken claimant is clearly to blame for an
accident.
Contributed by Bruce Goodbrand