Cyclist was fully responsible for an accident

The Court of Appeal upheld a finding that a cyclist was fully responsible for an accident which occurred when he veered into the path of an oncoming car as he tried to avoid cycling through a puddle.

The claimant’s account was supported by three witnesses, whose evidence was rejected by the trial judge. The judge found that the defendant had been driving properly and at an appropriate speed. There was no reason why the claimant – who would have seen the car approach – should not have stopped before moving round the puddle and entering the other side of the road. The claimant appealed. The Court held (1) it was the quality of evidence that countered rather than the number of witnesses. Although the judge could be criticised for failing to give reasons as to why he preferred the respondent’s evidence, the judge’s conclusion on that issue was not determinative in his decision; (2) the judge’s findings had presented a picture of the respondent driving properly, confronted at the last moment by the appellant who had made a decision to veer into his path without any good reason for doing so. The clear implication of that finding was that there had been no reasonable ground for asserting that the respondent should have taken account of the possibility of a sudden veering into his path without good reason by the appellant. His conclusion appeared to show that the sole cause of the accident was the appellant’s actions rather than any action or inaction of the respondent. While the judgment was given ex tempore and without the degree of forensic detail which time for reflection would have enabled, the judge’s findings were sustainable on the evidence and were sufficient, both expressly and by necessary implication, to lead to a proper finding that the appellant was the sole cause of the accident and that the respondent was not at fault.