Atanas Djumaliev v Mohamed Muradi
The High Court’s recent decision in Atanas Djumaliev v Mohamed Rashid Muradi [2026] EWHC 2748 (KB) has provided guidance on how the court is likely to view the apportionment of liability between two culpable drivers in a road traffic collision, where one of the drivers has been criminally convicted for their conduct in the same accident.
The claimant sought a declaration of liability from the High Court which would determine whether the defendant was wholly responsible for a road traffic accident that resulted in serious injury to two innocent pedestrians.
The defendant was driving a Range Rover on a central London street which was subject to a 20mph speed limit. By his own admission, he made the regrettable decision to test the vehicle's acceleration and reached 51mph.
Ahead of him, the claimant, driving a BMW i8, turned right from a minor road. His view to the left was significantly restricted and, despite looking in that direction before moving off, he failed to see the defendant. He continued the manoeuvre without looking to the left again and collided with the front offside of the defendant’s vehicle. As a result of the collision, the Range Rover mounted the pavement and collided with two pedestrians, resulting in serious injuries.
The defendant was later convicted of causing serious injury by careless driving owing to his excessive speed.
The claimant argued that the defendant’s speed was so egregious that the claimant ought not to be held responsible for the accident.
Conversely, the defendant argued that, regardless of his excessive speed, the claimant was still partly responsible for the accident because he had failed to exercise reasonable care when he emerged through the traffic into the defendant’s path.
The judgment provides valuable guidance on how the court will interpret the relative blameworthiness of one driver where the other driver has conceded his negligence in the accident. The judgment clarifies the following:
The duty of a driver to take reasonable care is unqualified – it is a duty owed to all driver, whether good or bad. The judgment reinforces the principle first laid down in London Passenger Transport Board v Upson [1949] AC 155, and since strengthened in Hernandez v Acar [2019] EWHC 72, that drivers are not entitled to drive on the assumption that other road users will always behave with reasonable care.
In this case, the claimant was held not to have exercised reasonable care when he failed to refresh his observations to his left immediately before completing his manoeuvre from the minor road. Had he refreshed his observations prior to emerging, he would have seen the defendant’s speeding vehicle.
In determining whether the claimant breached his duty of care to the defendant when he emerged from the minor road, the defendant’s excessive speed did not absolve the claimant from his duty. The court reaffirmed that drivers must anticipate that other drivers may exceed the speed limit, even to a significant degree.
In the judgment, the court apportioned liability 75% to the defendant and 25% to the claimant, recognising the negligence of both parties in the accident.
The defendant bore the larger share of liability for his greater relative blameworthiness and causative potency in the accident. While the court agreed that the accident could have been avoided had either party exercised reasonable care, it found that that defendant’s excessive speed was deliberate, whereas the claimant’s failure to look had been careless. It was the defendant’s grossly excessive speed that turned what would have otherwise been a manageable traffic situation into an emergency, substantially increasing the severity of the consequences for the pedestrians.
Phill Bratt - Complex Injury Partner
Redmond Tang - Complex Injury Paralegal.
Designed to elevate the policyholder experience and empower handlers, ClaimPilot transforms the claims journey with state-of-the-art AI, streamlined processes and reduced operational bottlenecks – all in one powerful platform.
