A UK insurer defeated a negligence claim despite the driver telling police at the scene he was "too busy" watching for traffic to notice pedestrians.
The High Court dismissed Rai v Advantage Insurance Company Ltd (t/a Hastings Insurance) on April 2, 2026, finding the claimant failed to prove the driver breached his duty of care - even though his own words, captured on police body-worn camera, appeared to suggest otherwise.
The collision took place on the evening of December 19, 2021, in Basingstoke. Maina Kumari Rai and her sister were walking home after visiting a friend when a car driven by Thomas Bolton turned right into a slip road off Worting Road and struck Ms Rai. She suffered a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury and now lacks the mental capacity to conduct proceedings herself. Her sister brought the claim on her behalf against Bolton's motor insurer, Advantage Insurance Company Limited, trading as Hastings Insurance.
At the scene, Bolton told an attending officer: "I just sort of noticed they were there as I was mid crossing this road. I don't know why I didn't see them but there we go. I was too busy focusing on if cars were coming, not the path itself."
That remark became a centrepiece of the claimant's case. But Ms Justice Obi, presiding in the King's Bench Division, was not persuaded.
The court heard that both sisters were wearing dark, non-reflective clothing and had approached from an unlit footpath, emerging against a dark background. Both accident reconstruction experts agreed these conditions substantially reduced the pedestrians' visibility to an approaching driver. The vehicle's A-pillar also partially blocked Bolton's sightline during the turn. Police drive-through footage recorded that same night - using Bolton's own car - showed that a similarly dressed pedestrian was "challenging to see."
Bolton's evidence was that he slowed to around 10- to 15mph, checked for oncoming traffic, and turned believing the way was clear. He spotted the pedestrians only when the front of his car was already one to two metres into the slip road. By then, it was too late.
The court found that in those conditions - poor visibility, A-pillar obstruction, and a driver's reasonable focus on oncoming vehicles - a careful motorist would not necessarily have seen the pedestrians before they stepped into the road. And even if an earlier sighting were theoretically possible, the claimant had not shown it would have prevented the collision.
The claim, filed in 2024, was dismissed on liability. The evidential uncertainties, the court said, fell against the party carrying the burden of proof.
For insurers, the case offers a pointed reminder: a driver's roadside remarks, however damaging they may sound, do not on their own settle the question of negligence. Context, physical evidence, and expert analysis still carry the day.
