The Highway Code describes children as extremely vulnerable when on the road. It states that drivers need to pay due care and attention when driving around places such as schools where children are expected to be. A lot of children don’t have a high understanding of danger and therefore it is extremely unlikely that a court will find contributory negligence against a child.
To make sure children are safe when going to and from school, local authorities employ lollipop men and women to make sure they cross the busier roads safely. However most schools only employ one lollipop man or women so it is up to the drivers to look out for children who may run out from behind parked vehicles.
From a young age, children are taught about road safety. For example: The Green Cross Code is taught to children in primary schools. This tells them to stop, look and listen before crossing a road. They are also reminded to look left and right a number of times before doing so. Some schools even watch videos on road safety with pupils to ensure they have a full understanding of the dangers of motor vehicles.
An example of a case involving five school children and a motorist is given in the Guide to RTA (Road Traffic Accidents) Liability:
In Rowe v Clark, the claimant was a 14-years-and 8-months-old schoolboy. He was returning from a shop at lunchtime with four other boys. They all had to cross the road. The defendant was driving her car with her small son strapped into the back seat. The road was painted with the marking ‘SLOW’ in capital letters, alongside conventional ‘school’ signs. The claimant, having crossed more than half of the road from the shop back towards the school, was struck by the defendant whilst she was driving on her side of the road. The judge found as a fact that the children were late back to school and were hurrying.
The defendant stated that she had seen two of the boys cross the road and three of the boys remained on the pavement. It was held that she had not sounded her horn or slowed down. She did not watch those on the pavement and the judge at first instance found the parties equally to blame. In justifying the 50% contributory negligence against the child the court stated that: “a boy aged 15 must be expected to take reasonable care of himself. The degree of care varies with the age of the child. There is a distinction to be drawn between a child of 12 and one of 14 and likewise between a boy of 14 and one of 16. He should not have rushed into the road. He was negligent in apparently not seeing the approaching car.“
