Reynolds v Patel: What Is a Driver’s Duty of Care?

There are two sides to every story, and it can often appear unclear at first who is at fault. The matter of Reynolds v Patel was one of them.

In 2017, an Uber passenger exited the vehicle early after asking the driver if it was okay to while the vehicle was at a standstill in traffic. In doing so, an oncoming cyclist collided with the opening door, injuring himself.

The question that followed the incident was: who is at fault? The passenger, for opening the door? Or the driver for not alerting the passenger of the oncoming danger?

picture it. . .

It's a Summer night, and you've travelled interstate to attend the Australian Open. You order an Uber, to take you through the bustling streets of Melbourne. When he arrives, you hop in the back seat and scroll through your social media while slowly moving through the traffic. 

You look up, you're close to your destination, and the Uber has slowed to a standstill. Eager to embark on your night out at the tennis, you ask the driver, "Is this okay?" and he terminates the fare on his iPhone. 

You swing open the back-passenger door, ready to step out, when you hear a commotion. Much to your shock, you find a cyclist on the ground. On his way home from work, his bicycle collided with the door you opened, and he has landed metres away.

Unfamiliar with your surroundings, you wonder if your actions were the sole cause of the accident.

So, who's to blame?

 
In this particular case, the Supreme Court of Victoria found the driver to be solely liable for the accident. 

The key consideration in this case was the question the passenger asked before opening his door: "Is this okay?". During the trial, the passenger stated that he asked the question so the driver could confirm whether it was okay to exit the vehicle and to indicate his intention to do so. 

The driver argued the question was non-specific and vague, and there was no evidence to suggest he was aware the passenger was going to open the vehicle door at that moment. 

The driver did not give evidence, and for this reason, the Judge largely accepted the evidence given by the cyclist and the passenger, drawing conclusions where appropriate.

why wasn't the passenger held responsible?

Ultimately, the Judge concluded that:

1. The driver understood the passenger asking, "Is this okay?" meant he was stating his intention to exit the vehicle;
2. By the driver ending the trip via the Uber application, he was aware the passenger would be exiting the vehicle and that it was not a designated stopping zone;
3. With common sense and knowledge as a licensed driver, the driver checked his rear-vision mirror and was aware of the cyclist in the bike lane; and
4. The driver was aware the passenger was about to exit his vehicle and had enough time to warn him of the dangers and turn on the his indicator or hazard lights to also warn the cyclist.

Where The Duty Of Care Fell

The cyclist argued that the driver owed him a duty of care as any road user would and breached this duty by failing to turn on his indicator or hazard lights to warn him of the passengers exit. Additionally, he did not warn the passenger of the cyclist's approach, despite him exiting a vehicle next to a bike lane.

The driver argued that: 

1. He did not owe a duty to control the conduct of the passenger and warn him of an approaching cyclist;
2. Courts are reluctant to impose a duty to control others; and
3. Extending the duty of care owed by drivers for acts of their passengers would open the flood gates.

The Judge determined that a reasonable driver in the circumstance would have:

1. Warned the passenger to watch out for cyclists; and
2. Turned on the vehicle's indicators or warning lights to warn the cyclist.

It was decided that the driver's failure to do so resulted in him breaching his duty of care.

Importantly, the Judge emphasised that the driver had access to mirrors which he could use to check for sources of danger, something that the passenger did not have access to.

but what about contributory negligence?

The Judge found there was no evidence of the cyclist speeding, and that there was no reason for him to anticipate a door would open in front of him without any indicator or warning light. No contributory negligence was attributed to the cyclist.