Relevant Case Law

Pell v Moseley (2003)

The Claimant was riding a motorcycle along a road. The road was a single carriageway with one lane of traffic in each direction and the speed limit in force was 60 miles per hour. The Claimant was travelling behind the Defendant whom he intended to overtake. The Defendant intended to turn right into a field to attend a motor cross event. As the Defendant attempted to turn right; a collision occurred between the Claimant and the Defendant. At the first trial of the case the judge found in favour of the Claimant fully. Defendant appealed and on appeal both parties equally to blame and liability was awarded on a 50/50 basis.

The Court found the Defendant negligent as they had failed to indicate, and notice the presence of the Claimant’s vehicle before turning right. The Claimant was negligent in failed to notice that the Defendant’s vehicle was slowing down and given the Claimant was aware of the event on the right he should not have attempted to have overtake when they did.

Relevant Case Law

Powell v Moody (1966)

Riding his motorcycle along a busy road, the Claimant came up to the tail of a stationary line of traffic, consisting of vehicles two abreast. The Claimant (motorcyclist) proceeded along the offside of the line of traffic, overtaking the stationary vehicles. The Defendant, driving a car, came out of a side road on the nearside of the line of traffic to pass through a gap and turn right to go along the main road in the opposite direction.

The Defendant (car driver) was given a signal by a driver of a milk tanker to come out and as he was inching his way out, the Claimant who was overtaking on the offside and had not seen the side road collided with the Defendant.

The Judge held both parties to blame but attributed 20/80 to the Claimant, thereby finding the Motorcyclist 80% to blame. It was held any vehicle jumping a queue of stationary traffic was undertaking an operation fraught with hazard and had to be carried out with the greatest of care.

Relevant Case Law

Winter v Cotton (1985)

This case involved a Claimant who was stationary at a junction with a main road. The Defendant was driving slowly along the main road with their near-side indicator flashing.

The Claimant, relying on both the signal and the Defendant's slow speed, began to manoeuvre onto the main road. The Defendant drove straight on and the vehicles collided.

The judge in this case decided that the Claimant was entitled to move off, given the speed of the Defendant's vehicle and the flashing indicator, and held that the Defendant was liable for the collision.

Relevant Case Law

Grace v Tanner (2003) EWCA Civ 354

The Claimant and Defendant entered a roundabout from a dual carriageway in different lanes.

The Defendant missed their exit and continued around the roundabout on the outside of the roundabout.

The Claimant anticipating the Defendant leaving at the previous exit then sought to exit the roundabout and collided with the Defendant.

The Claimant was held liable but on appeal the court apportioned liability 50/50 as the Defendant was negligent in failing to appreciate that in continuing around the roundabout they presented a possible danger to other road users.