Which driver is liable when a road traffic collision is caused by more than one vehicle?
The case of Lyons v QBE examined the situation where more than one vehicle contributed to a collision.
Two vehicles were travelling in the same direction along a road: a Ford Transit van and, ahead of it, a Vauxhall Astra. An ambulance was approaching via a slip road, intending to join the main carriageway. The Vauxhall Astra changed lanes, moving into the path of the Ford Transit, which had not reduced its speed despite being aware of the approaching ambulance. The two vehicles collided.
A court action was raised against the insurer of the Ford Transit, alleging that the driver’s negligence caused the accident. Separately, the Ford Transit driver initiated a legal action against the driver of the Vauxhall Astra.
What must a driver do when an emergency vehicle is approaching?
The presence of the ambulance was central to assessing the conduct of the drivers involved. The court considered the actions each driver took - or failed to take - to ensure safe driving in the presence of the emergency vehicle.
The Highway Code provides guidance for road users when emergency vehicles are nearby:
“When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you.”
The Vauxhall Astra driver changed lanes in a way that placed the Ford Transit driver in difficulty and danger, failing to follow the Highway Code guidance. Meanwhile, the Ford Transit driver did not slow down upon seeing the ambulance, which would have allowed it to merge safely and would have allowed more space for the Vauxhall Astra to change lanes. Although the Sheriff found that the specific section of the Highway Code did not directly apply - since it does not address emergency vehicles entering from a slip road - the general principles of anticipating the route of emergency vehicles and taking appropriate action were relevant in assessing both drivers’ conduct.
Which driver was at fault for the collision?
Both drivers were found to have materially contributed to the collision. However, only the Ford Transit driver was being sued in this particular court action. Therefore, the Sheriff only needed to determine whether he had made a material contribution to the incident - which he had. The extent of the Vauxhall Astra driver’s contribution was not considered, as she was not a party to the proceedings and was not represented in court.
What can we learn from this case?
This case offers several takeaways for both legal professionals and drivers. For lawyers, it reinforces that the Highway Code serves as guidance rather than the rule of law, and it highlights how courts assess the contributions of multiple drivers in a collision. The Sheriff declined to apportion blame between the two drivers, focusing solely on whether the Ford Transit driver had materially contributed to the crash.
For drivers, the case is a reminder of the importance of anticipating the actions of others and responding appropriately to emergency vehicles. The Highway Code advises against sudden braking or manoeuvres that could endanger others. It also underscores the principle of defensive driving - assuming that other road users may act unpredictably or carelessly, and adjusting your own driving accordingly.
