A High Court judgment of 2 April 2026 concerns a pedestrian struck by a car turning into a slip road, with her sister as litigation friend and liability and contributory negligence tried first.
Key facts
- Who: Ms Maina Kumari Rai, a pedestrian injured in a road collision, and Advantage Insurance Company Limited (t/a Hastings Insurance), the insurer of the driver.
- From: 2 April 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Maina Kumari Rai v Advantage Insurance Company Limited (t/a Hastings Insurance), [2026] EWHC 784 (KB)
Ms Justice Obi gave judgment in the King's Bench Division of the High Court in Maina Kumari Rai v Advantage Insurance Company Limited (t/a Hastings Insurance) [2026] EWHC 784 (KB) on 2 April 2026, after a hearing on 3 to 5 March 2026.
Background
On the evening of 19 December 2021, at about 8.30pm, Ms Maina Kumari Rai and her sister, Ms Anita Rai, were walking home. It was dark but dry. They approached an unnamed slip road leading to the A340 Ringway West at the western end of Worting Road.
A car driven by Mr Thomas Bolton turned right from the filter lane into the slip road and struck Ms Maina Kumari Rai. His headlights were on. Both pedestrians wore dark, non-reflective clothing. There was streetlighting along Worting Road, but none directly on the bridge section.
The claimant suffered multiple injuries, including a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. She now lacks the mental capacity to conduct court proceedings, so her sister acts as her litigation friend. Ms Anita Rai was also a witness, as she was with the claimant at the time. The defendant was Mr Bolton's insurer.
The questions
By an order of Master Yoxall (sitting in retirement) dated 19 February 2026, liability and contributory negligence were directed to be determined as preliminary issues. The court was to decide three things:
- whether the collision resulted from Mr Bolton's negligence;
- whether the claimant was contributorily negligent;
- if so, how far damages should be reduced.
The competing cases
The claimant alleged that Mr Bolton failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to give way to pedestrians crossing the slip road. She also alleged that he drove too fast and failed to slow down, stop, sound his horn or steer to avoid the collision. She relied on his comment to police at the scene: "I was too busy focusing on if cars were coming, not the path itself."
The defendant's case is that the collision occurred without a causative breach of duty by Mr Bolton. It says his lights were on, he indicated, and he reduced his speed. It also says his comment must be read in context: the interview was not under caution, and the scene was lit by emergency vehicles.
Both sides instructed accident reconstruction experts. The court heard oral evidence from Ms Anita Rai and from Mr Bolton.
- Ms Anita Rai said she reminded her sister to look and that both looked before crossing.
- Mr Bolton said he did not see the pedestrians until the front of his car was already in the slip road.
- The claimant's expert, Mr Green, said that pedestrians in dark clothing could be visible to a driver making careful observations.
What this means for people involved in road accident claims
In this case, a litigation friend brought the claim for a claimant who lacks capacity to conduct proceedings. The court was asked to decide liability and contributory negligence before any assessment of damages. The evidence put before the court included lighting, clothing, sightlines, witness accounts and accident reconstruction opinion.
Anyone with a similar claim should check the documents and evidence they hold and get advice on their own circumstances before any deadline passes.
Sources
- Maina Kumari Rai v Advantage Insurance Company Limited (t/a Hastings Insurance), [2026] EWHC 784 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 2 April 2026