Zoe Haines v Ross Talbott [2026] EWHC 2130 (KB)
[1]This claim arises from an accident that occurred on 7 January 2023 and in which the Claimant, Zoe Haines, was seriously injured. The facts are largely undisputed. In summary, Ms Haines was driving a car which started to emit smoke. She pulled over towards the side of the road and stopped. As she attempted to leave the car through the driver’s door, a van being driven by the Defendant, Mr Talbott, collided with the open driver’s door and with Ms Haines.[2]By an order sealed on 9 July 2025, Master Gidden ordered that liability should be tried as a preliminary issue.The Circumstances of the Accident
[3]Ms Haines was 20 years old and 23 weeks pregnant at the time of the accident. She was the owner of a 2008-registered Ford Fiesta, which had passed an MOT in December 2022 but which was noted at that time to have a minor oil leak and other faults. Although Ms Haines does not recall topping up the oil in the Fiesta, she accepts that on 6 January 2023 or early on 7 January 2023 she must have done so, having bought a can of oil for the purpose. She overfilled the engine substantially. The oil container that she had purchased was still in her car after the accident. The police forensic vehicle examiner discovered that the car engine’s oil capacity was 3.8 litres and that Ms Haines had added 2.25 litres above this capacity.[4]The accident occurred on the westbound carriageway of the A30 at about 5.10pm on 7 January 2023, approximately eight miles west of Bodmin in Cornwall. The A30 was unlit in this area. It was a dual carriageway with no hard shoulder. On the westbound side there was a rumble strip on the nearside edge of the inside lane, then an additional 0.7m of metalled road surface and then a grass verge.[5]The lighting conditions were the subject of some argument. The time was within “civil twilight”. A police officer completing a report form after the accident described the light as “daylight” (doing so in a free text box as well as on the part of the form that offered only “daylight” and “darkness” as alternatives). Dashcam footage from the time of the accident and photographs taken at the same spot exactly a year later at around the same time were available to me. The dashcam footage showed dull, evening daylight conditions. The photographs from January 2024 suggested that the scene was pitch black, and illuminated only by vehicle headlights. There was agreed expert evidence that the light levels would have been lower than the dashcam video suggests. It is further agreed that the weather conditions on 7 January 2024 were different from those on 7 January 2023, with more cloud cover in 2024. I am also mindful that the lighting levels shown on a video and on printed photographs reflect the brightness and colour settings of the medium through which they are displayed or printed.[6]Ms Haines was driving westbound on the inside lane along the A30, heading towards a nearby Starbucks. Her partner, Liam Hocking, was in the front passenger seat of the Fiesta. Because of her injuries, Ms Haines was unable to recall any of this journey. Mr Hocking spoke to the police after the accident and gave written and oral evidence in these proceedings.[7]According to Mr Hocking, as Ms Haines drove along, they both noticed a rattling noise coming from the car, and smoke coming from the engine. Ms Haines said that the car was losing power. She steered towards the left hand side of the road. Subsequent investigation showed that the car came to a halt parallel with the rumble strip while still protruding 0.6m into the inside lane.[8]Mr Hocking’s evidence was that, as the car came to a halt, the smoke was so thick that he could see a “minimal” distance in front of him– perhaps as far away as his outstretched hand. He told the police that there had been a bang (from the car, not as a result of the collision), although in evidence in these proceedings he said that he was not sure when the bang had occurred; he thought that it was probably after the accident. He said that he was afraid that the car was going to catch fire. Mr Hocking got out of the car on the passenger side.[9]It is accepted on Ms Haines’ behalf that she cannot show that she switched on the hazard lights. She switched off the engine and the car’s headlights (which would automatically have switched off the rear lights). Ms Haines got out on the driver’s side.[10]It is agreed that the overfilling of the oil led to the emission of large quantities of smoke from the Fiesta.[11]Mr Talbott was driving westbound in a Renault Trafic van, a fairly short distance behind the Fiesta but never close enough to see it as it began to emit smoke and slow down. He was with his wife and children; they were returning home after visiting family members. Both he and Mrs Talbott gave accounts to the police and gave evidence in this case.[12]Mr Talbott said in evidence that he noticed small amounts of smoke drifting across the carriageway. Initially he thought that it was smoke from a farm fire. One of the children commented on the “stink” and Mr Talbott realised that the smoke smelt oily. His evidence at the hearing was that he anticipated coming up behind a tractor or other slow-moving or broken-down vehicle that was emitting smoke; he thought that at some point he would have to overtake it.[13]It is common ground that there were three patches of smoke through which Mr Talbott drove; the first was “wispy” and did not affect visibility, the second was somewhat thicker and the third was impenetrable. It was agreed that Mr Talbott would have been able to see the impenetrable patch of smoke ahead of him when he was, at a minimum, 69 metres away from it. Mr Talbott braked hard on entering this patch of smoke but almost immediately collided with the door of the Fiesta and with Ms Haines. The smoke was so thick that neither Mr nor Mrs Talbott saw anything before impact, or even at the time of impact.[14]Ms Haines was thrown forwards, landing on the carriageway. She sustained serious injuries. Mr Hocking pulled her to the side of the road.[15]Mr Talbott pulled off the road, called the emergency services and went to give first aid to Ms Haines. Mrs Talbott, who was a trained first aider, left the children in the care of other members of the public who had stopped at the scene, and also went to assist Ms Haines.[16]I should say, as I did at the hearing, that I have no doubt that all of the witnesses gave entirely honest accounts and were doing their very best to recount events as they remembered them. I am grateful to all of them for their assistance.Liability of Mr Talbott
[17]Another driver, Mr David Warr, had overtaken Mr Talbott shortly before the accident. Mr Warr was not called to give evidence but dashcam footage from his car was made available and was analysed by the accident reconstruction experts engaged by each party.[18]There was a high level of agreement between the experts.[19]Analysis of the footage showed that when Mr Warr overtook the Renault Trafic, Mr Warr was travelling at around 66mph and Mr Talbott at around 58mph. Over the next few seconds, both vehicles slowed so that they were both travelling at about 55mph, with Mr Warr’s car slightly ahead of the Trafic (which was then out of sight of the camera). Mr Warr remained in the outside lane while Mr Talbott stayed in the inside lane.[20]The experts calculated that, in the seconds leading up to the impact, the Trafic was travelling at an average speed of 52mph. It was not possible to calculate the speed at the moment of impact. However, since Mr Talbott said that he braked heavily immediately before the collision, it can reasonably be assumed that he had carried on at a speed of around 55mph until the moment of hard braking.[21]The dashcam footage shows that there were three other cars travelling westbound in the inside lane ahead of Mr Talbott, identified for convenience at Cars A, B and C, with Car A being the furthest away from the Trafic and Car C the closest. It was agreed that all three of these cars continued at a speed of around 55mph. Initially, Cars A, B and C were all in the inside lane. Car A was well ahead of the others and it seems to me that there was little reason for Mr Talbott to focus on it. I therefore discount it. However, as they approached the thickest smoke the drivers of Cars B and C – unlike Mr Talbott – pulled into the outside lane. They were both in the outside lane when they passed through the densest area of smoke. No vehicle is seen going through the smoke in the inside lane.[22]Ms Haines’ case is essentially a straightforward one. It is said that Mr Talbott should have slowed more than he did before entering the dense smoke and/or should have moved into the outside lane before reaching this smoke.[23]Mr Talbott’s case is that he continued to travel at roughly the same speed as other drivers, that he reduced his speed appropriately so that he could cope with the hazard ahead of him, which he assumed to be another vehicle emitting smoke, and that he could not have anticipated driving suddenly into impenetrable smoke that concealed a stationary car. He submits that he was faced with a sudden emergency – a “white-out” of thick smoke – and that he did not respond unreasonably. He contends that this accident was caused solely by the negligence of Ms Haines, who was responsible for the car breaking down and for the emission of smoke, and who then left her car protruding into the carriageway and got out on the driver’s side, into a running lane of traffic.[24]Ms Haines has relied on the detailed calculations of the experts as to the points at which Mr Talbott could have slowed down, and as to the limited extent to which he would have had to brake, in order to avoid an accident. The experts have been able to conduct a frame-by-frame analysis of the dashcam footage. Their work has been very helpful in establishing both what did in fact happen and what could have happened had Mr Talbott braked earlier or more heavily. However, I have to be careful when considering liability not to subject Mr Talbott’s driving to a detailed analysis informed with the luxury of hindsight, when this is an incident that occurred within seconds.[25]I do not need to decide whether the experts’ calculations are correct or whether they reflect realistic options. Mr Talbott accepts that he could have taken action that would have avoided a collision. The question is whether he should have done.[26]Mr Talbott agreed that at the time of the accident there was “enough natural light in which to carry out most outdoor activities” but said that the scene was a little darker than the dashcam video suggested. It was agreed that the scene was lit by his own headlights and those of Mr Warr’s car, which remained in the outside lane and a short distance ahead of Mr Talbott, and so illuminated the road for roughly a further ten metres beyond the range of Mr Talbott’s own lights.[27]The dashcam footage shows that the two cars ahead of Mr Talbott in the inside lane – Cars B and C – both braked at some point and moved into the outside lane. There was no evidence from the drivers of these cars. It is not possible to tell how much they braked, although they do not seem to have slowed significantly, both maintaining a speed over 50mph. The footage shows that the brake lights of Car C, immediately in front of Mr Talbott, were on continuously for 4.5 seconds, but brake lights come on as soon as the brake pedal is applied and do not show how heavily the driver is braking.[28]Mr Talbott understandably could no longer recall the details of the cars ahead of him but, having looked at the dashcam video, accepted that he would have been able to see the brake lights of Cars A, B and C come on ahead of him.[29]Mr Talbott said in evidence that initially wisps of smoke were drifting in front of his headlights. The experts calculated that, during the time that Car C was braking, Mr Talbott’s own speed reduced from around 58mph to 55mph. He thought that he was probably responding to a combination of the smoke and the cars braking ahead of him.[30]Mr Talbott said that he thought that he was “easing off” at this point, and that the driver of Car C, having braked and then released the brake, was moving onwards again. Mr Talbott said that he saw no immediate danger.[31]However, by the point 300 metres from the collision spot, Cars B and C, both a short distance ahead of Mr Talbott, had moved into the outside lane. At that point, Mr Talbott was approaching smoke which he described as “very patchy and changing quick” and there were no other vehicles ahead of him in the inside lane.[32]Mr Talbott was a frank and thoughtful witness. Asked why he had not changed lanes himself, he explained that his van was slower moving than many cars (being limited to 60mph) and that he was used to other vehicles passing him. He said that it was not unusual for there to be a group of cars in the outside lane and that he did not give them much thought.[33]Mr Talbott initially said in evidence that he thought that there was a moving vehicle ahead of him emitting smoke, and that he was expecting to catch up with an old tractor or something similar and that he would then be able to overtake. Later in his evidence he said that he expected to see either a moving or a broken-down vehicle. He explained that things happened quickly (when he entered the impenetrable smoke) and that he did not then have time to make a judgment as to what to do. He braked hard and tried to keep the van within the white lines of the inside lane. He could not at that point safely move into the outside lane; he could not see anything. The collision happened immediately after he went into the smoke.[34]Mr Talbott gave a slightly different account to the police. He suggested then that he had braked and slowed down as he approached the smoke. On Mr Talbott’s behalf, Mr Block KC urged me to accept this account as more likely to be reliable, since events would then have been fresh in Mr Talbott’s mind. But Mr Talbott was speaking to the police at the scene of a very serious accident, and then after having been arrested and taken to a police station for interview. He would undoubtedly have been shocked and upset. In evidence, he said that he had been confused when speaking to the police. His account in these proceedings is consistent with the expert evidence, and I believe that it is more accurate. I make no criticism of Mr Talbott; it is not surprising at all that his accounts to the police in the aftermath of the accident were not completely correct.[35]In my view, a reasonable driver would have taken more action than Mr Talbott did. He was aware that there was drifting smoke on the road. He was, or should have been, aware that the smoke was becoming thicker ahead. He could not know how thick it might become, or whether it might impede visibility. While there was still some daylight, he needed and was using headlights (as were other road users). A reasonable driver would have slowed enough to be able to react to anything that the headlights picked out and to be able to slow to a safe speed if the smoke worsened and affected visibility.[36]Mr Talbott assumed that the smoke was coming from a slower moving or even stationary vehicle ahead of him. He assumed that he would be able to see that vehicle in sufficient time to overtake it.[37]I find that these assumptions were not reasonable. This was an unlit road in fading daylight. Mr Talbott could have no idea how near the source of the smoke was; if the source was a vehicle, he could not know whether that vehicle was moving or stationary, if moving how fast or slowly it would be travelling or where on the carriageway it would be when he came across it. He said in evidence that he expected to see the tail lights of a slow-moving vehicle or the hazard lights of a broken-down one. But he could not know whether the vehicle would be showing lights at all, or whether the thickening smoke might obscure the vehicle.[38]Also, other drivers ahead of him were moving into the outside lane. It seems very likely that the drivers were moving to the outside lane because the smoke was thinner there. The dashcam footage suggests that Car C moved out when there was no other vehicle in sight in the inside lane; it seems unlikely that the driver of Car C could have seen the Fiesta at that point. But whatever the drivers’ reasons, Mr Talbott could see cars moving into the outside lane, leaving no vehicles ahead of him in the inside lane. The very fact that this was happening would have alerted a reasonable driver to the very real possibility that there was a hazard shortly ahead in the inside lane.[39]I find that a combination of the increasing smoke, the braking of the other drivers and the movement of the other cars to the outside lane should have caused Mr Talbott to take more action than he did. If Mr Talbott wanted to stay for the time being in the inside lane, he should have slowed significantly so that he would be able safely to take further action when he knew exactly what and where the hazard was.[40]I do not find that Mr Talbott was reacting to a sudden emergency. There were warning signs of an impending hazard. Mr Talbott said in evidence that, when he went into the wall of smoke, he was just reaching the point at which he would make a decision to move into the outside lane. He had therefore recognised that there was a hazard that he needed to avoid. In my view, he simply did not react as quickly as the circumstances required.[41]Mr Talbott was driving a large and heavy vehicle. The risk of serious injury or worse to other road users in the event of a collision was obvious. In the circumstances, I find that Mr Talbott’s driving fell below the standard of a reasonable driver, and that his negligence caused the collision with Ms Haines and her car.Contributory Negligence of Ms Haines
[42]The law in this respect was largely undisputed. Section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides: Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage…[43]In deciding what is just and equitable, I am required to consider both the blameworthiness and the causative potency of any acts said to amount to contributory negligence.[44]Ms Haines accepts that she was negligent in overfilling the car with oil. She inevitably, therefore, also accepts that it was foreseeable that, as a result of the overfilling, the Fiesta would emit large quantities of smoke and break down. It is further accepted on her behalf that Mr Talbott’s actions, which the Claimant characterises as negligent but not reckless, did not break the chain of causation.[45]There is no suggestion that Ms Haines actually knew either that she had overfilled the car or what the consequences of doing so might be.[46]On behalf of Ms Haines, Mr Sanderson submits that I should take into account her youth, inexperience and impecuniosity when assessing her negligence in this respect. I cannot accept that submission. It is well established that a new driver must be held to the same standard as an experienced driver, when the question of negligent driving is considered: Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691. It seems to me that the same principle must apply when considering safety-critical car maintenance. An inexperienced car owner who does not know how to maintain their car competently must be expected to obtain help from someone who does. A lack of funds to pay for car maintenance cannot justify the application of a lower standard of care. In this case there is in any event no evidence of impecuniosity or a lack of available help. If anything, the opposite is true; I was told that Ms Haines’ father, a garage mechanic, had already done some work on the car to address the “advisories” identified in the December 2022 MOT. Mr Sanderson accepted that Ms Haines could have sought her father’s help to fill the car with oil.[47]On Mr Talbott’s behalf, it is said that Ms Haines was additionally negligent in that she: i) failed to switch on the car’s hazard lights; ii) switched off the headlights (and therefore the rear lights) when she stopped the car; iii) failed to steer the car onto the grass verge, instead leaving it protruding 60cm into the nearside lane; iv) got out of the car through the driver’s door, into the path of oncoming traffic, instead of sliding across the passenger seat and getting out of the passenger door.[48]All of these acts, if carried out in a non-emergency situation, could be negligent. However, Mr Sanderson contends that Ms Haines should not be judged too harshly, since she did all of these things when responding to an emergency.[49]Mr Block KC contends that the allowance to be given to a claimant reacting to an emergency is not applicable when the claimant was responsible for creating the emergency in the first place. Neither counsel was aware of any case in which this point had previously arisen. Mr Block suggested that this was because the point was too obvious for it to require a decision. I suspect that it may be rare for a claimant to be alleged to be contributorily negligent in several distinct ways, with separate acts stemming from an initial act of negligence.[50]Both counsel agree that contributory negligence is a question of fact, essentially a “jury question” in which I should look at the acts of Ms Haines in the round when deciding whether she failed to take reasonable care for her own safety.[51]It seems to me that I cannot sensibly or fairly ignore the circumstances in which Ms Haines acted as she did, even though she was responsible for creating those circumstances. I infer from the evidence of Mr Hocking that Ms Haines, like Mr Hocking, was afraid of the car catching fire. The actions of a driver who thinks that her car might catch fire at any moment cannot be viewed in the same light as those of a driver who has plenty of time to stop a car and get out of it.[52]I find that Ms Haines was negligent in failing to switch on the hazard lights of the car. She had plenty of time to do so. It is one of the first things that a competent driver should do when their car develops a fault that may make the car a danger to other road users. Ms Haines could and should have switched on the hazard lights as she manoeuvred the car to the side of the road; she had a further opportunity to do so as soon as she had stopped.[53]However, I do not find that this failure had any causative effect. Mr Block KC very fairly conceded that it might not have been possible for Mr Talbott to see any hazard lights. The smoke was so dense that Mrs Talbott, sitting in the passenger seat of the van and so passing within inches of the Fiesta, did not see the Fiesta or Ms Haines even at the moment of collision. It seems unlikely that the hazard lights, if switched on, would have been sufficiently visible to make any difference to what happened.[54]The same is true in respect of the headlights and rear lights, which Ms Haines switched off. Switching them off was, in my view, negligent, even when faced with an emergency. But rear lights are less bright than hazard lights, and would not have been visible through the smoke.[55]I do not find that Ms Haines was blameworthy in failing to pull the car completely off the road. Mr Hocking’s recollection was that the smoke was so dense as the car came to a stop that he could not see beyond his outstretched hand. It was not possible for anyone to explore this issue with Ms Haines because of her loss of memory, but it seems highly unlikely that Ms Haines knew, or could have known, exactly where she was on the road.[56]I do not find that Ms Haines was blameworthy in getting out on the driver’s side of the car. Many people, faced with thick smoke coming from a car, would reasonably fear fire or even an explosion and would get out of the car as quickly as possible. In that situation, the risk from oncoming traffic might well seem the lesser of two evils. I cannot know whether Ms Haines ever considered using the passenger door, but it would undoubtedly have taken her, as a pregnant woman, significantly more time to clamber around the gearstick and across the passenger seat than it would to exit on the driver’s side. And again, although I cannot know, she may have thought that she was further off the road than in fact she was. The smoke would have prevented her from seeing the lights of the oncoming van. There would have been traffic noise from vehicles passing in the outside lane. I cannot know whether Ms Haines would have been able to hear the oncoming van, or realise how close to her it was.[57]Although I have found that Ms Haines’ acts in stopping the car partially on the carriageway and then getting out on the driver’s side were not in themselves blameworthy, they were causally very significant. The accident would not have occurred had the car been further off the road or had Ms Haines left the car on the passenger side. Further, it was the smoke – caused through the negligent filling of oil – that made it impossible for Ms Haines to see where she was stopping the car or whether there was oncoming traffic. So while I have considered blameworthiness in the context of the emergency facing Ms Haines, I do still bear in mind that it was her own negligence that created the emergency and led her to act as she did. These are all factors that I take into account when assessing a percentage of contributory negligence that seems to me to be just and equitable to reflect her failure to take reasonable care for herself.[58]Mr Sanderson submits that Ms Haines’ contributory negligence should be assessed at 20%. Mr Block KC submits that it should be 80% (if I find, as I have done, that Mr Talbott was negligent at all).[59]I assess the extent of Ms Haines’ contributory negligence, taking all of her actions in the round, at 30%. While I recognise that she caused the emergency, it seems to me that the emergency she created is of a sort that drivers have to face every day, namely a hazard on the road that they have to take reasonable action to avoid. The fact that suddenly dense smoke may be an unusual hazard does not detract from the basic proposition that a reasonable driver must be prepared to cope with unexpected hazard, particularly one of which he has had some warning. In the circumstances I find that Mr Talbott should bear 70% of the responsibility for this accident.[60]I am very grateful to counsel for both parties for their assistance and to those instructing them for the meticulous preparation of this case.[61]The parties have agreed a timetable for further submissions on consequential directions and on permission to appeal, and I adjourn the hearing for those further matters to be considered. I extend time for the filing and service of a Notice of Appeal and (if necessary) application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal to 21 days following the date of my decision on the application for permission to appeal.