Malasi v Attmed (2011) QBD 5/12/2011

A collision occurred between a Defendant taxi driver and a Claimant cyclist at a traffic light controlled T-junction.

The taxi passed through a green light and a collision occurred as the cyclist, who was coming from the taxi driver's left, crossed a red light.

The taxi driver had been proceeding at between 41 and 50 miles an hour in a 30 mile an hour speed limit and the cyclist had run a red light, failed to wear a hi-viz vest and a helmet and failed to apply his brakes to avoid the collision.

The court held that had the cyclist obeyed the traffic lights or even noticed the presence of the taxi and braked slightly the collision would have been avoided.  However, if the taxi driver had not been driving between 41 and 50 miles an hour in the 30 mile an hour speed limit there would also have been no collision.

The court commented that had the taxi driver been travelling only modestly over the speed limit it was possible that it would have not concluded that he had been driving negligently but in this case he had been travelling "gloriously in excess of the speed limit" and that amounted to negligence in the circumstances.

The court referred to the case of Quinn v Scott (1965)1WLR 1004 QBD which is authority to the fact that travelling at high speed is not negligent unless particular circumstances precluded it.  This was a case decided before maximum speed limits were imposed and involved a driver travelling at a speed who swerved to avoid a tree across the road and hit another vehicle.

In this case however the taxi driver's speed was relevant and did amount to negligence.  The causative factors of the accident were:

  • The cyclist running the red light.
  • The cyclist failing to apply his brakes to avoid the accident.
  • Taxi driver's excessive speed.

Without any one of these factors there would have been no accident and no injuries.

The balance of fault lay very heavily with the cyclist.  The extent of the taxi driver's responsibility for the cyclist's injuries depended on him travelling at an excessive speed through a green light where he would have had a legitimate expectation other road users would comply with the traffic signal.  Accordingly the cyclist's damages were to be reduced by 80%.