Filtering Accident - recent case judgement

[T.C]

Until now, Davis v Scroggins (2006) has been the authority that has helped filtering riders claim 100% liability in filtering crashes. This case was particularly relevant as the filtering rider was travelling at speed despite the fact that he was travelling in excess of 50MPH whilst filtering.


However, yesterday a new case was reported on appeal where because of the high speed, the rider was held 80% liable with the car driver held only 20% liable.


Whilst filtering cases have to be judged on merit, and if speed is kept to a reasonable level it should make no difference, just be aware that there is now a new weapon in the defendants armoury.


BURTON v EVITT (2011)

CA (Civ Div) (Sir Anthony May (President QBD), Black LJ, Kitchin LJ) 18/10/2011

PERSONAL INJURY - ROAD TRAFFIC

APPORTIONMENT : DRIVERS : MOTORCYCLES : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY : INABILITY OF DRIVER TO SEE BEHIND VEHICLE WHEN DRIVING

A driver was found to be 20 per cent liable for a road traffic accident caused when he turned whilst being unable to see an approaching motorcycle being driven quickly and overtaking other vehicles. Where a driver was unable to see what was behind him it was necessary for him to inch out to gain a better view.

The appellant (E) appealed against a decision that he had been negligent and was one-third responsible for a road traffic accident involving E and the respondent (B). E was driving his car at the front of a queue of traffic. He slowed down, looked in his mirror and saw nothing except a larger vehicle behind him. E, when almost at a standstill, then started to turn right into a car park. The driver of the vehicle behind E then saw a motorcycle, driven by B, at the corner of his vehicle, overtaking. B drove forwards, collided with E's car and sustained severe injuries. At trial the judge found that B was driving at an unsafe speed and in such a way that he could not deal with an emergency and so was negligent. However, it was also found that it was E's duty to move his car closer to, and perhaps over, the centre of the line in the road so that, using his wing mirror, he could have seen B approaching and that E's failure to do so meant that he was causatively responsible for the accident. It was found that B was two-thirds responsible and E one-third responsible for the accident. E submitted that although any driver should have been aware of any other driver overtaking on the outside, he had slowed down and checked just before he turned and, to require more, was a counsel of perfection.

HELD: (1) It was common ground that in driving along such a road, there was a need to be particularly aware of the presence of motorcycles and that they might overtake lines of cars. E initially acted with considerable care but, when crawling, he could not see what might be coming up on the offside. As the size of the vehicle behind E's car meant that E could not see clearly, he should have inched out. Where a driver could not see what was behind him, he had to take that step. E's appeal in respect of negligence was therefore unsuccessful. (2) B's negligence was of a very high order and contributed to what happened. The issue of blameworthiness of E and B required greater analysis than it received. Proper apportionment had to take into account the different negligence issues in respect of E and B. It was appropriate to set aside the trial judge's apportionment and replace it with apportionment that B was 80 per cent and E 20 per cent liable.

Appeal allowed in part

So word of warning guys, be carefull with your speed when filtering
____________________
It is better to arrive 30 seconds late in this world, than 30 years early in the next

[carlosthejack...]

Thanks for that, very interesting. FWIW, I'm always ultra-cautious when filtering past standing traffic. Sometimes I have to check my speed, but I tend to be in either first or second and less than 20mph with observation senses on high alert...
____________________
Responsibility. It's a difficult reality for some. I'm running the 2014 Sheffield Half Marathon on behalf of Bluebell Wood Childrens Hospice. Please sponsor me, even if it's just a quid.
DonnyBrago: "I think you may be confusing rain and napalm..." Paulington: "It's not what you ride, it's how you ride it."
Current rides: '05 VFR800 VTEC, '57 Mondeo 1.8 TDCi #58LEGEND

[multijoy]

[DrDonnyBrago]

Any idea of how fast the motorcyclist was filtering?

[Jayy]

Well, if you're travelling any faster than about 20mph when filtering, you deserve to get taken out by a car pulling out on you. The amount of times cars have done it to me, you just brace yourself when filtering that at least one person won't see you and pull out.

To the guy travelling at 50mph... he was asking for it.

[Daimo]

I dont think theres a set rule on how fast you should filter. It totally depends on the situation.

However, you shouldn't be filtering faster than you can stop.

If the blokes gone round a larger vehicle, knowing there was a junction, then common sense would say "slow down!"

Hence my firm belief that a lot of people have brains and intelligence, but common sense is a skill thats fast dissapearing.

Simple common sense.......

[c-m]

Always enjoy reading up on case law. Though this doesn't change anything in relation to case law on filtering, as filtering speed could already be held as a contributory factor.
____________________
Motorcycle headlight bulbs and HIDs
Blogging about my bike and trips
https://ridershandbook.com/

[D O G]

Further evidence that fast filtering past a junction is stoopid.

[iooi]

[The Artist]

I would rarely filter faster than 20mph. Even at that speed it is dodgy enough with side roads and what not.

Only time I would consider going faster than that would be on a long stretch of dual carriageway or something with no turn offs in gridlocked traffic.

[defblade]

"Why is there a queue of traffic to overtake in the first place?"

Parked cars narrowing road ahead? Temporary lights? Someone waiting to turn right?

Careful, always careful, especially near the head of the queue....
____________________
Honda Varadero 125cc => Suzuki Bandit 650 33bhp => 77bhp =>
BMW K1200R Sport 163bhp => Aprilia Shiver GT 750 95bhp

[anthony_r6]

I only filter when traffic is at a standstill or moving very slowly so I can get a decent grasp of the spaces I can fit into while making sure I'm not affecting any oncoming traffic. If the traffic is moving at the speed limit, albeit stopping and starting, I'll just go with it and wait.

Travelling that fast was asking for trouble, I can see why he would be held liable for it. That being said, I had a car swing out from the opposite side of the road right in front of me the other day. Unbelievable it was how fast she came out. Had she hit me (and she was bloody close,) she'd have probably killed me. I was furious. I'm more cautious with long lines off traffic now, even if it's built up facing the opposite direction!
____________________
Ted : "Maybe he's agoraphobic."
Dougal : "Jack scared of fighting? I don't think so, Ted."

[J.M.]

[Recluso]

I'm the same as many have already said. Although I was filtering much more frequently/confidently than I was say, 6 months ago, I rarely go above 20mph.

Even if traffic is at a COMPLETE standstill, going excessively fast (i.e. 50mph) is just asking for trouble. Sure, there might be no turn offs, but you don't know that some impatient driver isn't going to give up and pull a pissed off U-Turn just as you come hooning past.

Nice post though OP. Gives you something to think about.
____________________
'Just erotic. Nothing kinky. It's the difference between using a feather and using a chicken.'
Honda PS125i > Yamaha YBR125 > Yamaha XJ6 Diversion > Yamaha Tracer 900