In this case the Claimant had been crossing the street when he was hit by the Defendant.  The Claimant chose not to use a pedestrian crossing, which was close to where he crossed.

The issue arose as to whether the Claimant had been taking reasonable care for his own safety or whether it had been reasonably foreseeable that he was subjecting himself to a risk of injury by crossing the road not on the crossing.

The Court ruled that it was impossible to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the Claimant had not assessed the safety of crossing where he did. A reasonably prudent pedestrian would have crossed the street only if he could reasonably expect to reach the other side of the street.  If a prudent pedestrian saw an oncoming vehicle he would stop and wait for him to pass before attempting to cross the street.

It was held that the pedestrian contributed to the accident but overwhelming fault was with the Defendant as he was driving at excessive speed in an area where there were a number of pedestrians. 



Kaye Mansbridge

Legal Executive - Personal Injury Team