Proving negligence in road traffic claims

Published by a ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû PI & Clinical Negligence expert
Practice notes

Proving negligence in road traffic claims

Published by a ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû PI & Clinical Negligence expert

Practice notes
imgtext

This Practice Note considers the common types of evidence that may be relied on to determine liability in a Road traffic accident claim including a breach of the Highway Code and statutory duties, relevant motoring convictions, police records and accident reconstruction expert evidence. It also looks at the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Road traffic accident claims are predominantly brought in Negligence. If a road user has breached the Highway Code this can be relied on as tending to establish liability in civil proceedings. In addition, while a road traffic criminal conviction is not in itself proof of negligence, the conviction shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to disprove liability in the civil action.

NOTE: Major changes to the Highway Code came into force on 29 January 2022. The concept of a 'hierarchy of road users' was introduced to give vulnerable road users a greater degree of clarity over who has Right of way at junctions. For further details, see News Analysis: A Highway Code for the future—visionary changes

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Negligence definition
What does Negligence mean?

Negligence is 'the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do' (Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781, at p 784). It is accepted that the test for breach of duty is objective, in the sense that the individual character and mental and physical features of the particular defendant are usually irrelevant.

Popular documents