Background
The case arose from an October 2022 collision at the junction of Hans Place and Pont Street in Knightsbridge, London. Mohammed Rashid Muradi deliberately applied maximum acceleration to a Range Rover to test its performance, reaching about 51 mph on a street subject to a 20 mph limit. Atanas Djumaliev was meanwhile turning right from Hans Place onto Pont Street in a BMW. The vehicles collided, after which the Range Rover mounted the pavement and seriously injured two pedestrians.
Muradi admitted negligence. Djumaliev maintained that he had looked left before pulling out but accepted that parked vehicles restricted his view, that he did not look left again after beginning the manoeuvre, and that he proceeded continuously through the junction. The parties had agreed quantum subject to the court’s findings, leaving the court to decide whether Djumaliev was also negligent and, if so, how responsibility should be apportioned.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court held that Djumaliev was negligent and that his negligence contributed both to the vehicle collision and to the Range Rover’s subsequent collision with the pedestrians. His 32-metre view from the give-way line was insufficient to justify proceeding continuously into the westbound lane. His continuing duty to give way required him to edge forward cautiously and refresh his view to the left as it opened, or to pause before entering the westbound lane. Had he done so, he could have seen the Range Rover and stopped.
The court nevertheless found Muradi substantially more culpable and his negligence more causatively potent. His deliberate, grossly excessive speed transformed a manageable traffic situation into an emergency, prevented him from stopping in time, contributed materially to the Range Rover leaving the carriageway, and increased the severity of the pedestrians’ injuries. The court apportioned responsibility 75% to Muradi and 25% to Djumaliev, applying that division to both the collision and its consequences for the pedestrians.
Key Takeaways
- A driver emerging from a minor road remains under a continuing duty to observe and give way when an initially restricted view improves during the manoeuvre.
- Another driver’s extreme speeding does not necessarily relieve an emerging driver of the obligation to take reasonable precautions against traffic that is initially out of sight.
- Apportionment turns on both culpability and causative potency; Muradi’s deliberate acceleration to 51 mph in a 20 mph urban zone justified the substantially greater share of responsibility.
Why It Matters
The judgment illustrates how English courts assess responsibility when several negligent acts combine to cause a road collision and injuries to third parties. Priority on the road and the immediate act creating a conflict are important, but they are not decisive where another driver’s deliberate excessive speed creates the emergency and magnifies its consequences.
It also underscores that apportionment is a fact-sensitive evaluation rather than a mathematical formula or tariff. Detailed reconstruction evidence may assist, but the ultimate question remains what reasonable care required and how each party’s breach contributed to the accident and resulting harm.