We're often asked by clients about case law concerning misleading signals, in particular those quoted at clients, but which don't actually fit the circumstances they've encountered.

These cases deal with road traffic accidents where there's been a misleading signal.

A typical scenario involves driver A stationary at a junction, while driver B is proceeding along a main road and either slowing down or indicating left when approaching a T-junction.

Case law here is quite clear, and there are a number of cases that give us an idea of how the courts will decide these matters.

Wadsworth v Gillespie (1978)

The defendant was stationary in a motor vehicle in a side road waiting to enter a major road. The claimant was riding his motorbike along the main road.

The defendant noted the left indicator flashing on the claimant's motorbike and, reacting to it, began to turn onto the main road. The claimant continued straight on and a collision occurred.

The judge held that the claimant had knocked the lever of his indicator accidentally and wasn't aware it was flashing.

The judge held that the defendant failed in her duty in not taking a further look to satisfy herself that the claimant was indeed turning left. He also found that the claimant had failed in his duty of care, as he was proceeding along a main road giving a misleading signal.

The judge found that liability would be apportioned two thirds against the car driver and one third against the motorcyclist.

The thing to remember here is that the judge accepted that the indicator was on accidentally.

This case needs to be distinguished from a number of others that are all quite similar, but which have small but important differences.

Winter v Cotton (1985)

This case is becoming better known, and you can often find reference to it when cases of misleading signals are being discussed.

It involved a claimant who was stationary at a junction with a main road. The defendant was driving slowly along the main road with his near-side indicator flashing. The claimant, relying on both the signal and the defendant's slow speed, began to manoeuvre onto the main road. The defendant drove straight on and the vehicles collided. 

The judge in this case decided that the claimant was entitled to move off, given the speed of the defendant's vehicle and the flashing indicator, and held that the defendant was liable for the collision. 

Soil Ltd v Bromwich (1998)

The circumstances here were slightly different: the defendant had seen the claimant approaching from the right on a major road and signalling left about a half a car length before the junction, whilst slowing to approximately 15mph.

The defendant acted on this and moved to join the main road. The claimant's actual intention was to pull up on the other side of the junction on the left side of the main road.

Unsurprisingly, the defendant argued that the claimant's signal was misleading. The claimant relied on Highway Code rule 111, which states that a driver should never assume that a flashing headlight is a signal inviting you to proceed. 

The judge held that an award in full should be made to the claimant, saying he felt the claimant had used his best endeavours to drive carefully and to let the defendant know his intention wasn't to go left, but to stop after the junction. This was shown by his signalling only a car length from the junction.

Davis v Swinwood (2003)

The claimant's evidence was that the defendant was signalling left to enter a minor road from a main road. The defendant denied signalling left at all.

The claimant said he'd relied on the defendant's left hand indicator of his articulated lorry, and that he was travelling at low speed and situated on the crown of the main road. Under these circumstances the claimant left the minor road, and the lorry collided with the claimant's vehicle. 

The judge found in favour of the defendant. He felt that the flashing indicator on the defendant's vehicle was not the issue. He stated that the claimant had been seeking to enter a main road from a minor road and that the defendant had precedence, so the onus was clearly on the claimant to enter the main road safely. The judge believed the claimant had failed to do this. 

The Highway Code

It's clear that a driver or rider on a main road has precedence over a party emerging from a minor road, but a judge will look at all the circumstances surrounding the accident, including signalling, behaviour and witness evidence.

The Highway Code states in rule 103:
'...signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians, of your intended actions. You should always give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time, use them to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off, cancel them after use and make sure your signals will not confuse others.'

In rule 104, it states you should also watch out for signals given by other road users and proceed only when you're satisfied that it's safe, and be aware that an indicator on another vehicle may not have been cancelled.

The advice to those emerging from minor roads has to be to emerge only when you're completely satisfied that a party on a main road is proceeding into the minor side road. How can you be completely satisfied?

Wait.

Tell us what you think

All documents should be read and used in accordance with the terms and conditions. This document is for your general information only and is not a detailed statement of the law. It is provided to you free of charge and should not be used as a substitute for specific legal advice. If you require specific legal advice please contact our helpline on 03700 86 86 86.