Turnbull v Warrener [2012] EWCA Civ 412

A tractor driver turned right and was hit by a speeding motorcyclist who died. The trial judge found the tractor driver 100% liable. The Court of Appeal reversed this, finding the motorcyclist 80% contributorily negligent due to his excessive speed.

Facts

Ms Turnbull, the defendant, was driving a tractor and trailer. She intended to turn right from a minor road, cross the B1249 main road, and enter a field gateway directly opposite. The B1249 had a 60 mph speed limit. Before commencing the turn, she saw the headlight of a motorcycle, which she estimated to be about 400 metres away, and judged it safe to proceed. Mr Warrener, the deceased motorcyclist represented by the claimant, was approaching at a grossly excessive speed, estimated by experts to be between 80 and 87 mph. As the tractor crossed the carriageway, Mr Warrener’s motorcycle collided with its front nearside wheel. He suffered fatal injuries. The trial judge found that Ms Turnbull was wholly to blame for the accident as her manoeuvre was dangerous and ill-judged, and he found no contributory negligence on the part of Mr Warrener.

Issues

The primary legal issue on appeal was the apportionment of liability between the driver executing a right-hand turn and the driver of an oncoming vehicle travelling at excessive speed. The court had to determine whether the trial judge was wrong in law to find the tractor driver 100% liable and to absolve the speeding motorcyclist of any contributory negligence.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, overturning the trial judge’s decision. Lord Justice Ward, giving the leading judgment, held that both parties were at fault and that their actions were causative of the collision. While he accepted the trial judge’s finding that Ms Turnbull was negligent for misjudging the speed and distance of the motorcycle and proceeding with a dangerous manoeuvre, he was highly critical of the failure to find any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

Ward LJ emphasised the extreme speed of the motorcyclist, stating:

His speed was outrageously fast for this road.

He concluded that the respective blameworthiness and causative potency of the parties’ actions had to be assessed. He reasoned that whilst the tractor driver created the obstruction, the motorcyclist’s speed was a major factor in the collision occurring. He stated:

Both were causative of the collision.

In apportioning liability, Ward LJ considered the relative culpability of the parties. He concluded that the motorcyclist’s conduct was significantly more blameworthy than that of the tractor driver. He explained his reasoning on culpability:

So far as culpability is concerned, it seems to me that the motorcyclist was far more culpable than the tractor driver. She was negligent in her execution of a manoeuvre which, if carried out with due care, would have been perfectly safe. He was driving at a speed which was not only illegal but dangerous.

Based on this assessment of higher culpability on the part of the motorcyclist, the court substantially revised the apportionment of liability. Ward LJ concluded:

I would therefore assess his contributory negligence as being 80 per cent.

Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Hughes agreed with this assessment, setting aside the trial judge’s order and substituting a finding of 80% contributory negligence against the claimant.

Implications

This decision is a significant authority on the apportionment of liability in road traffic accidents involving a right-turning vehicle and a speeding oncoming vehicle. It clarifies that while a driver turning right has a high duty of care, the grossly excessive speed of an oncoming driver can be deemed the dominant cause of a collision. The case underscores that driving at an ‘outrageously fast’ speed constitutes a high degree of culpability which will be reflected in a substantial finding of contributory negligence, in this case 80%. It serves as a strong precedent against absolving speeding drivers of responsibility, even when another party has also been negligent.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed. The order of the trial judge was set aside and substituted with a judgment for the claimant subject to a finding of contributory negligence of 80%.

Source: Turnbull v Warrener [2012] EWCA Civ 412