IN THE COUNTY COURT AT Claim no.

BA2204806
BARNET

BETWEEN:

MR HOWARD GREGORY JAMES

Claimant

and

MRS HELEN PETERS Defendant

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BELHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

Introduction

1. This Skeleton argument lodged in support of the Defendant’s to contend the claim
that pursued by the Claimant and counterclaim for the damages suffered by the D,
which the C negligently caused.

Background

2. On 14th January 2021 the Defendant was driving her car, a Vauxhall Astra bearing
the registration plate KS65HGC from High Barnet down Beech Hill Road to collect her
twin daughters from their school in Cockfosters and was waiting at the Beech Hill
junction to emerge to A111 main road. The Claimant was driving his car, a Jaguar
XGS bearing the registration number plate HGC 007 on the A111 and approaching
the junction with Beech Hill on his left. As the Claimant approached the said junction
he slowed down, indicated a left turn; and began to turn left into Beech Hill Road.

3. By reason of the sequence of matters set out above, the Claimant’s flashing of his
headlights was reasonably understood by the Defendant to demonstrate an
 intention on the part of the Claimant to allow the D to drive on to the A111. The
Defendant thereupon began to emerge from Beech Hill on to the A111.As the
Defendant was emerging, the Claimant, without further warning or indication,
changed direction and drove back on the A111 and into the D’s car. Eventually, The
Claimant collided with Defendant’s car.

Evidence

4. In making the claim against the Claimant, the Defendant will refer to the following
materials:
a) Witness statement of Helen Peters (“WS/HP”) dated 15.06.22 (pp 23-26)
b) Witness statement of Marsha Walker (“WS/MW”) dated 15.06.22 (pp 27-29)
c) Plans and photographs of the Beech Hill/A111 junction and the Hadley Wood area
(pp 51-54)

The issue

5. Whether was the Claimant’s actions of indicating a left signal, slowing down, and
holding and looking at a map over the steering wheel while driving breached its duty
of care to the Defendant and caused the collision?

The Law

6. Section 38(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that:  “failure on the part of a
person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that
person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any
proceedings (whether civil or criminal..) be relied upon by any party to the
proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in
those proceedings”
 7. Every road user has a common law duty of care towards other road users. The duty
is to take reasonable care to avoid doing or omitting to do anything that they can
reasonably foresee would cause injury to others.

8. Winter v Cotton [1984] 5 WLUK 28: The court held that the Claimant was entitled to
begin to move off having regard to the speed of Defendant's car and the flashing
indicator. Defendant was wholly liable for the collision.

9. Wadsworth v Gillespie [1978] CLY 764: The Court held Split liability where liability
would be apportioned two thirds against the defendant motorist and one third
against the plaintiff motorcyclist.

10. Rule 103 of the Highway Code: A road user must give clear signals in plenty of time,
having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time and should not confuse
others.

11. Rule 111 Highway Code: that the road users should never assume that flashing
headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. However, it also highlights that a road
user must use their own judgment and proceed carefully.

12. Rules 148 and 150 of The Highway Code on the dangers of driver distractions.

Submissions

i. Misleading Signals
13. Rule 103 of The Highway Code highlights that the road user must “give clear signals
in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time and
should not confuse others.”

14. Based on Rule 103, it is submitted that a road user should not signal until they are
passing the road. If they were to signal earlier, it may give the impression that they
 intend to turn into the road, which in this case, the Claimant had prematurely given
his signal, leading to the impression that he might be turning into Beech Hill Road.

15. Rule 111 of the code further provides “that the road users should never assume that
flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. However, it also highlights that
a road user must use their own judgment and proceed carefully”. In applying this to
present facts, the way that the Claimant had slowed down his car while approaching
the Beech hill Road junction and indicated the left signal before flashing the
headlight to the Defendant, shows it is reasonable and safe for the Defendant to
assume that the Claimant had demonstrated an intention to allow the Defendant to
drive on to the main road (A111).

16. Moreover, in the case of Winter v Cotton [1984] 5 WLUK 28, it was held by the court
that the party who was driving slowly along the main road with their near-side
indicator flashing was wholly liable for the accident.

17. Accordingly, speed of the car and the premature indication of left signal that was
made by the Claimant before crossing the Beech Hill Road Junction confused the
Defendant and gave an impression that the C was going to take a turn into Beach Hill
Road.

ii. Holding a map while driving

18. Rules 148 and 150 of The Highway Code set out that the car drivers must avoid
distractions of reading maps while driving. If necessary, they must find a safe place
to stop in order to consult such maps.

19. The Claimant was holding the Map over the steering wheel while driving (para 4 of
WS/HP, pp 24). This would have distracted the Claimant from noticing the
Defendant’s car in sufficient time to avoid the collision.
 20. Moreover, the fact that the Claimant asked Ms Walker on direction to the railway
station and particularly on whether “if the next turning off was the one for Hadley
Wood” and “how far away that was.” (para 6 of WS/HP,28 29) clearly shows he is
unfamiliar with the directions and must be reliant on the map to get to his final
destination.

21. As such, it is submitted that the Claimant initially intended to turn left in the Beech
Hill Road junction and for this reason he signalled left and slowed down his car while
approaching Beech Hill Road. This supports the allegation of the Defendant that the
Claimant was initially turning to Beech Hill Road before abruptly changing his
direction and swung back to the main road A111.

22. Thus the Claimant had breached Rules 148 and 150 of the Highway Code by
recklessly using a map on the steering wheel while driving which lead to the collision
with the Defendant.

Conclusion

1. It is submitted that the court should find the Claimant to be wholly liable for this
accident. The Defendant should be awarded £7,890 to £13,740 in general damages
and £4,876.30 for the special damages that she has incurred because of this
accident.

2. Alternatively, if the court is found that the Defendant is jointly liable, the court must
consider the significant contributory negligence on the Claimant’s part and the
liability should be split between both parties accordingly. (Wadsworth v Gillespie
[1978] CLY 764).
CHRONOLOGY

Date/Time Event Page Reference

14th January 2021 D attended birthday lunch in High Barnet p. 23

14th January 2021 C driving north along A11 Cockfosters Road p. 17

towards Potters Bar (single lanes road, no
double white lines, good visibility).

D stopped at junction between Beech Hill and p. 18, p. 24, p.28

A111 Cockfosters Road towards Potters Bar.

D pulled out of junction, colliding with D’s p. 18, p.24

vehicle.

Both parties got out of their vehicles and had a p. 18, p.24
conversation about the accident

Owner of vehicle that was behind D’s called D’s p. 24. P.28
school to make them aware of situation and
offered to look after D’s children.

Both parties attended Barnet General Hospital: p. 18

- C several fractured ribs, cut to forehead,

kept in for observation overnight.
- D whiplash and bruising to chest.
15th January 2021 C obtained hire vehicle at a cost of £82.50 per p. 33
day (Porsche 911 Carrera Convertible, with
unlimited mileage)

17th January 2021 Accident repair report of C’s motor vehicle pp. 30 - 31
confirming extensive vehicle repairs to the
nearside front of the vehicle.

D obtained hire vehicle at a cost of £35 per day p. 37

(Renault Clio)

11th February 2021 Invoice for repairs to C’s motor vehicle p. 32

 Jeremy Murray (C’s medial expert) report pp. 38-39

15th February 2021 D returned hire vehicle p. 37

18th February 2021 Invoice for repairs to D’s motor vehicle p. 35

Kofi Adowno (D’s medical expert) report pp. 40 - 42

10th March 2021 C returned hire vehicle p. 33

4th March 2022 Claim Form Issued pp. 3 - 4

4th March 2022 Particulars of Claim pp. 5 - 8

23rd March 2022 Defence and Counterclaim pp. 9 - 13

30th March 2022 Reply pp. 14 - 15

14th April 2022 Judges Directions: p. 16

- Fast-track
- Standard disclosure by 4pm 11th May
2022
- Witness statements by 4pm 17th June
2022.
- Permission to rely on experts – neither
expert to be called to give evidence.
- Pre-trial checklists 23rd September 2022
- Trial before DJ with time estimate ½
day.
- Costs in case order
10th June 2022 WS Howard Gregory pp. 17 - 19

10th June 2022 WS Kevin Hobbs pp. 20 - 22

15th June 2022 WS Helen Peters pp. 23 - 26

18th January 2023 General form or judgment of order on maximum pp. 44 - 45

times at trial