There were several recent hearings involving motorcyclists that are worth taking a close look at, including the case of Devereux v Hayward, which concerned a biker and a horse rider.

The claimant was riding her horse in the New Forest with her husband, who was following on another horse. They were riding single file and the claimant gave evidence that her horse was a generally calm, steady and reliable animal, not easily spooked.

The defendant was riding a Honda CB900 motorcycle with a non-standard exhaust system. The judge said: "The noise it was making was very loud indeed."

As the motorbike approached the claimant, the excessive speed and noise startled the horse. At the same time, the defendant lost control of his motorbike and he and his pillion passenger fell off. The bike then collided with the horse, the horse bolted, and the claimant was thrown off.

The defendant said he saw the horse, pulled in the clutch which reduced the noise and coasted towards it, reducing his speed as he went. The horse then reared up on its back legs and turned to flee when the claimant fell off.  He stated that he steered to the left and struck the left hand verge and came to a stop.

The defendant was riding at about 45 mph on the 40mph road. 

After hearing all the evidence, the judge accepted that the defendant pulled in the clutch and dipped the revs, but brakes were not applied. It was also agreed that the defendant didn't change his road position.

The judge said that "...it was a combination of the loud noise made by the approaching bike...and the sight of the bike travelling at speed as it came towards them that startled the horse."

The judge concluded that the horse turned clockwise with its forelegs slightly raised and the movement of the horse startled the defendant. It was at this point that the defendant first applied his brakes and that he lost control of his motorbike, due in part to the speed he was travelling.

She said that the accident was caused by the defendant's negligent failure to keep control of his bike, partly due to the excessive speed at which he was travelling when he saw, and then approached, the horses.  

In Burton v Evitt, a car was travelling at the front of a queue of traffic, with a large vehicle behind. The driver's evidence is that he slowed, checked his mirrors, indicated, and saw nothing other that the vehicle following him.

When he was almost at a standstill he started to turn right into a car park. The driver behind Evitt then saw a motorcycle overtake the line of traffic and collide with Evitt's vehicle.

At the original trial, the judge heard that the motorcyclist was riding at an unsafe speed and in such a way that he could not deal with any emergency should it occur.

However, the judge also found that the car driver had a duty to move his car out of the line of traffic, near to the centre of the road so he could have seen the motorcycle approaching, and that his failure to do so meant he was one third responsible for the accident.

At the Court of Appeal, the appeal was allowed in part. It was agreed that there was a need to be particularly aware of motorcycles overtaking lines of traffic, and whilst initially the car driver's conduct was careful, when he slowed down he should have taken steps to allow him to see clearly, and inched out. Because he didn't, his appeal in respect of negligence was unsuccessful.

However, apportionment by the judge in the original hearing was replaced with 80% blame on the motorcyclist and 20% on the car driver. The judge advised that the car driver performed what would ordinarily be expected of a vehicle making that manoeuvre. 

He was liable on a limited basis, though, for failing to ensure that a very small area that he was unable to see, was clear. If he'd inched towards the centre of the road he'd have done everything possible to ensure it was safe to proceed.

The majority of liability rested with the motorcycle rider. Remember, a judge will look at what the rider would have observed – slowing traffic, a junction or turning – or failed to observe had his view been blocked. He should therefore have been proceeding with more care to enable him to 'deal with any emergency that might be caused' (Clarke v Winchurch).

It's worth distinguishing this case from other filtering cases mentioned in my earlier article on motorbikes and filtering.

Remember, these cases are judged on their individual merits and whilst there are similarities, they all have slightly different circumstances.  

Smith v Kempson involved a car driver pulling out of a side road with the view to her right obscured by parked vehicles.

A motorcyclist was travelling from the car driver's right and on the opposite side of the road due to the parked vehicles. As the car driver emerged, she collided with the motorcyclist.

It was agreed that the car driver would only have been able to see the motorcyclist once she was clear of the side road, but the judge felt she was liable for pulling out of a side road when it was unsafe to do so.

The judge felt the motorcyclist didn't ride below the reasonable standard required in the circumstances.

The case went to appeal, and interestingly the car driver's counsel cited the case of Farley v Buckley, in which the court found in favour of a car emerging from a minor road (though the circumstances were very different, and the motorcyclist's actions were described as 'reckless'). 

At appeal, Justice Tugendhat agreed with the trial judge when she said: "The burden of proof is the balance of probabilities and...I conclude that the chances are 51% that the accident occurred as a result of falling below the standard of a reasonable driver by the defendant..."

He added: "It is significant in my view that the judge was able to, and did, reach the clear conclusion that the claimant driver of the motorcycle had not driven below the reasonable standard required of a motorcyclist in the circumstances of that case. That is contrary of the finding made in Farley".

He went on to dismiss the appeal.

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.