In the recent case of McCreery, a 61 year old claimant was knocked down by a lorry after getting off a bus and trying to cross a road with a 60mph speed limit. The HGV's speed was around 40mph, which was well within the speed limit. There was a sign about 500m away warning of disabled people crossing the road.
The approaching driver had seen the warning sign and the bus and only braked after he saw the claimant, which was too late. He should have appreciated the risk of someone walking out from behind the bus and should have reduced his speed further to between 20 and 29 mph despite the speed limit of 60 mph. The driver was found at fault. Was the pedestrian at fault however?
The court decided that both the claimant and the driver were equally to blame and the compensation due to the claimant should be reduced by 50% for crossing into the path of the vehicle
McCreery applies the rationale in Jackson that because a careless car driver poses a considerable risk of serious injury to pedestrians he has a far greater responsibility to take care than a careless pedestrian.
The Court found that too many drivers ignore developing hazards, thinking that as long as they are driving at less than the speed limit then they are taking sufficient care. These cases show that drivers require to do more than passively ignore situations which may develop, even where they involve a clear lack of care by pedestrians.