Is a Skid an Excuse?
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Courts' Attitude Towards Skidding Seems Greatly to Depend on Whether or Not the Act of Skidding Was Something Which the Driver Might Have Expected from the Prevailing Conditions
By Our Legal Adviser
WHEN a vehicle skids—maybe on an icy road— and there is an accident, is the driver to blame? Frequently, in answer to an allegation of negligence, the defence may be raised that the defendant's actions were because of an uncontrollable skid by his vehicle.
The Courts' attitude towards skidding seems to have altered somewhat in the past 40 years, but it now seems to depend greatly on whether the act of skidding was something which the driver might have expected from the conditions prevailing, or not. Speaking quite generally, however, one can say that the mere fact of skidding is itself quite equivocal—it does not enable a Court to assess the reason for an accident unless it also knows the reason for the skid. Merely to prove, therefore, that one's vehicle skidded does not carry the matter
any further when one is a defendant. ,.
To take some concrete examples from the many decided cases on negligence: it was held that where a car got out of control and, after mounting the pavement, killed a pedestrian in a shop doorway before coming to rest, the defendant had displaced the allegation of negligence made by the plaintiff by showing that he was not travelling at an excessive speed but that the road at that point was in a slippery condition.
In a similar case just before the war, where a car driven by a woman got into a severe skid and injured the plaintiff, who was walking on the pavement, it had been urged on behalf of the plaintiff that, even if the fact that the car skidded was not the driver's fault—in view of the proved greasiness of the road at that point—yet she must still be considered negligent in that she failed to correct the skid, and in fact made matters worse by turning her wheels the wrong way and accelerating. The Court of Appeal, however, decided that the time and space available to her were insufficient to enable her to avoid the accident.
Principle of Immunity it is important to realize that, in so holding, the Court of Appeal were not laying down any general principle of immunity from responsibility to correct a skidding vehicle—the decision was purely based on the particular Facts before them. Indeed, few drivers would deny that ills a part of every road user's necessary driving technique to know how to react to and correct a skid.
Even if it is beyond control it would still be incumbent upon a driver not to make matters worse by violent acceleration. Although the writer knows of no actual decision where failure to correct a skid has been the basis of damages being awarded against a defendant, it does not follow from this that such could not occur, and this would seem obvious apart from the fact that it might be inferred frOm the decision of the Court of Appeal on the particular facts mentioned above.
The importance of whether the driver of a vehicle was in a position to know the dangerous condition of the road conditions as a determining factor in assessing liability is well illustrated by the 1939 case of Liffen v. Watson, where a passenger in a taxi sued the driver for damages for injuries arising out of a collision betweer the vehicle and a street refuge.
The facts showed that the taxi was being driven fast on a wet road when the driver suddenly applied his brakes, causing a violent skid. In evidence, the driver was forced to admit that at the speed he was travelling a sudden application of the brakes was likely to cause a skid. The judge said that where a passenger was injured by a sudden application of the brakes, a presumption was raised of negligence or lack of skill on the part of the driver.
The principle to be applied was that the facts required explanation by the driver, and in the circumstances the driver's explanation was unsatisfactory and the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. This was a perfect example of where merely to say " My vehicle skidded" was nc excuse; and, moreover, it illustrates the fact that, where the dangerous state of the road is obvious to a driver, he must proceed with sufficient care so as to nullify the danger.
Onus on Driver
The matter was clearly put by the Court of Appeal in a wartime case when they laid down that where a driver is using skill and care and proceeds to carry out an ordinary, simple and perfectly normal manceuvre, but because of the condition of the road he most unexpectedly gets into a skid, he is not liable. A skid might be caused by bad driving, careless driving or over-rapid driving, and the onus was on the driver to prove that it was not brought about through any of those causes.
The cases so far discussed have concerned skidding on wet or greasy roads. Where there is snow and ice about —obviously visible in the general conditions and not a sudden, small, unexpected patch—it will probably be negligence if an accident occurs owing to a skid, however icy the road surface. In Laurie v. Raglan Building Co. in 1942, a heavily laden 10-wheeled lorry was being driven at 10 m.p.h. on a wide road, without chains, with snow and ice about making the surface like glass, and it was held that even to drive at that speed was in the circumstances negligent.
The Court of Appeal ...went so far as to say that if conditions are so bad as to make any movement at all dangerous, it is a driver's duty not to proceed at all. This is clearly the extreme case and everything is a matter of degree; but it should be clearly remembered that, if dangerous road conditions are obvious, a skid is certainly no defence or excuse for an accident. One must drive so as to nullify the danger.
Lastly, of course, it may be urged that a driver proceeding with great care can hardly be blamed for a skid caused through suddenly having to avoid another's negligence. Bearing in mind that one should always expect to meet a fool around the corner," as it has been said, and so be prepared for an emergency, the real answer in such a case where an accident occurs, is whose fault was the direct cause of it? It may well be that the fault would have to be apportioned between the vehicles.