4 December 2007
We received a petition asking:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to improve road safety by introducing strict liability for motorists in collisions."
Details of Petition:
"Youngsters are being asked to walk or cycle to school to be green and reduce jams. Walking and cycling are generally safe but parents will worry - if they are brave enough to let youngsters be independent. The perception of safety has to be improved. Lower speeds and extra road education will play a part but this petition is calling for a change to strict liability laws on drivers’ insurance policies. At present, in a car - bike/pedestrian collision, the cyclist or pedestrian (probably the worst injured) has to prove the motorist was reckless. We want that burden of proof switched so the motorist - choosing to use a ton of metal at speed - has to prove the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault. This only applies to insurance claims. In criminal law, drivers in collisions remain innocent until proven guilty. This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling, and a better child road safety record, Let’s raise driving standards and create better road user attitudes."
Read the Government’s response
The Government recognises the potential tragedy that can be caused by serious road traffic accidents. It shares the concern that vulnerable road users should be properly protected. Accidents can occur for many reasons and the outcome of an accident, for example a death or serious injury, is not necessarily as a result of a motorist acting unreasonably or driving in a dangerous manner. Motorists should not be unfairly penalised but it is right that they should always have in place insurance cover for damage to third parties and to their property and that vulnerable road users should be able to claim against it when liability has been proven.
Most claims for damages, including those for personal injuries, are brought as negligence claims. For a negligence claim to succeed the claimant must show that the defendant had a duty to take reasonable care towards the injured party, and that as a result of a breach of that duty, the injury was caused. It must also be shown that the type of loss or injury for which damages are being claimed was a foreseeable result of the breach of the duty.
The determination of liability in individual cases is a matter for the courts, having due regard to all the circumstances of the case and the actions and standards that it is reasonable to expect from each of the parties involved. Where liability is determined in favour of a claimant, under the principle of contributory negligence the amount of any damages awarded may be reduced to reflect the extent to which the claimant’s own negligence may have contributed to the injury.
It would not be appropriate to change the law to provide that motorists should automatically be liable for any accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. This would lead to unfair results in cases where the motorist is driving entirely responsibly and the accident is caused by the irresponsible behaviour of the pedestrian or cyclist. The current law enables the court to decide where responsibility for the accident lies and to award damages accordingly.