The Gazette 1967/71

Road Traffic, Negligence, Signal In delivering post, a postman had parked his van at the apex of a bend in the road partly on the verge. While standing by the van he saw the defendant's on-coming car and then looked in the opposite direction and signalled to the defendant to pass the van. The defendant accepted his signal to go past the van and this entailed driving partly on the wrong side of the road, and asa result found himself unable to avoid a collision with the plaintiff's car. When sued for damages and defen dant joined the Post Office as a third party claim ing an indemnity for the damages awarded to the plaintiff and for damages to his own car. In the first instance the Judge held that once the defen dant had started to pass the van the resulting collision was inevitable; the defendant had acted reasonably in relying on the postman's signal and the postman was entirely to blame for the acci dent. The Post Office appealed on the grounds that the postman owed no duty of care to the defendant. In dismissing the Post Office's appeal Edmund Davys, L.J., said that a person could not with impunity and with recklessness give a signal to other drivers who might not be as able as he to see what was the true traffic position. The postman owed a duty and he had been negligent. It could be that the driver was negligent in attempting to overtake at all for a driver could not act blindly on a signal to overtake and such a driver had a constant duty to drive with reasonable care. Here it had been proved that the postman was negligent and it had not been proved that the defendant acted negligently. [Grange Motors (Cwmbram) Ltd. v Spenser and Another, 112 S.J. 908f. Easement, Right of Support, Wall The plaintiff's yard is divided from the first defen dant's yard by a stone wall the property of the plaintiff. In 1962 two sheds were erected against the wall by the plaintiff. In 1964 the defendants in levelling their own yard, employed a firm to excavate to a depth of four feet adjacent to the plaintiff's wall. Originally they intended to leave a bank of earth to support the wall but no bank was in fact left and the new level of the defen dant's yard was about one foot below the founda tion of the plaintiff's wall. In 1965 the wall cracked and damaged the shed and the plaintiff claimed damages. It was found that the damage to the wall and the shed was caused by the move ment of the soil underneath the base of the wall 100

Signed by

No. the President 36. Appropriation Act, 1968. 18th December 1968 37. Finance (No. 2) Act, 1968. 18th December 1968 38. Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Act, 1968. 24th December 1968 (c) Private Acts Nil. CASES OF THE MONTH Road Traffic, Negligence, Invitation to Cross Path Car driven by the first defendant was parked on its off side in a parking strip at the side of the road. He wished to cross the road to travel in the direction he was facing, pulled out slightly with his near side indicator flashing. A bus driver in a line of traffic stopped, looked in his mirror and then flashed his lights. The first defendant pro ceeded until the bonnet projected about a yard past the front of the bus, when a motorcycle overtaking the bus collided with him. The motor cyclist was injuried and brought this action claim ing damages against the first defendant, the bus driver, and the bus driver's employer. In the first instance the plaintiff was found two-thirds to blame for the accident. The first defendant was exculpated and the bus driver and his employer were found to be one-third to blame. The bus driver and his employer appealed and so did the plaintiff. On the appeal it was held that there was no duty on the bus driver in these circumstances. Flashing his lights meant "come on as far as I am concerned". If he had seen the plaintiff he might have been under a duty to stop the plaintiff but as he did not he should be acquitted of negligence. The first defendant was carrying out what was a necessarily dangerous manoeuvre. It was right for him to proceed in front of the bus. In Powell v Moody (1966) 110 S.J. 215 a case of similar facts, the driver was held 20 per cent to blame but that was based on a suggestion that he had not kept a proper look-out. It had been suggested that the first defendant might have flashed his lights or sounded his horn or put the bonnet of his car a short distance out and then stopped, to give the plaintiff an oppor tunity to avoid him. However, as the first defen dant had come out extremely slowly and carefully it is difficult to see what more he could have done. In these circumstances the plaintiff was entirely responsible for the accident. [Clark v Winchurch and Others, 112 S. J. 909]. Title