NOTE: This Practice Note refers to UK Rome II. This regulation is applied when determining applicable law in cases in which the harmful event constituting a tort occurred on or after 1 January 2021. Originally known as Retained Rome II, since 1 January 2024 it is known as Assimilated Rome II—the change is to the name only and not the provisions within the regulation. Authorities may refer to the regulation using either name and so for ease of reference the regulation is referred to as UK Rome II in this Practice Note. For information on assimilated law, see Practice Note: Assimilated law. This Practice Note sets out the legal framework and the procedure by which a claim is made by the victim of a road traffic accident which occurs in the UK but is caused by the driver of a foreign registered vehicle. It is very likely indeed that the insurance cover for the vehicle will have been provided by a foreign insurer. Background The Green Card system The

Despite the common law maxim, 'once a highway, always a highway', a highway can be subject to overriding statute. Consequently, highways may be closed or diverted under many Acts of Parliament, or by natural causes. For diversion and closure of highways by natural causes, see Practice Note: Natural and other causes of diversion and closure [Archived]. Stopping-up of highways The two most frequently used powers to stop up a highway are in section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980) and section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990). The government guidance ‘Apply to close or divert a highway’, published on 25 March 2025, provides a form for stopping-up orders under TCPA 1990, ss 247, 248 or 253. Under HiA 1980, s 116, the highway authority may apply to a magistrates’ court for a stopping-up order. The only ground for such an order is that the highway is unnecessary. Under HiA 1980, s 117, any person who wants a highway stopped up as being unnecessary may ask the local highway authority

Accidents involving collisions between road vehicles and other vehicles, pedestrians, animals or obstructions.

This Checklist can be used to identify the key procedural steps, considerations and legal principles involved in handling road traffic accident (RTA) claims. For further guidance, see: Road traffic accidents—overview. Duty of care and breach of duty Duty of care The applicable standard of care is that of a road user of ordinary care and skill ie the care and skill of the average driver. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Duties of the road user. Assess potential breach Evidence of negligence may be obtained from sources such as: • the Highway Code: a breach may be relied on as tending to establish or negate any liability that is in question in proceedings (section 38(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988)) but does not create a presumption of negligence (Powell v Phillips and Wakeling v McDonagh) • a relevant criminal conviction shifts the burden of proof onto the convicted party to prove that they were not negligent (Stupple v Royal London Insurance) • any applicable statutory duties (eg pedestrian

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This road traffic accident update comments on the guidance on minor psychological injuries published by the Ministry of Justice and the amendments to Practice Direction 51R to subject non-personal injury road traffic accident claims to mediation. The update is written by Jon Wong, barrister in the Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence teams at Guildhall Chambers, with contributions from Alice Reeves.

There are a number of commonly encountered obstacles on the highway: • animals • poorly-maintained roads • ice and snow • flooding • vegetation • other obstructions Animals straying onto the highway Most cases involving animals straying onto the highway will be decided under the law of negligence. However, some cases have succeeded under the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971). Where an accident occurs between a vehicle and a farm animal, there can often be serious consequences; given the size and unpredictable nature of the animal involved. In common law, the owner or person responsible for the animal will be held liable if, due to the owner's negligence, the animal causes damage. There is a duty on farmers who graze cattle in a field next to a road to take all reasonable precautions to prevent their escape in order to avoid causing danger to road users. The ordinary principles of negligence apply to this duty. In deciding what precautions are reasonable, the court will weigh the

The purpose of this Practice Note is to provide a guide to the main issues and challenges facing a practitioner when dealing with a claim arising from a road accident which occurred in the EU. Claimant practitioners are often approached by potential clients who have had accidents resulting in personal injuries while travelling on the roads of the EU. Typically, though not without exception, the client will have been a passenger travelling in a car driven by a family member or friend. This Practice Note considers: • jurisdiction—whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction over the claim (where proceedings are commenced from 1 January 2021); and if so • applicable law—the laws of which country are to be applied to the various issues arising Brexit Jurisdiction The key legislation in connection with matters relating to jurisdiction following the UK’s departure from the EU and IP completion day is the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/479. These regulations had the effect of amending the Civil Jurisdiction

The nature of the duty owed by bus drivers A bus driver owes the same duty to other road users, including passengers, as any other driver. The duty is to drive with reasonable care and skill expected of a competent driver. Assessment of that competent driver needs to be undertaken in context and in the case of a bus driver should be measured not only by the standards outlined in the Highway Code but also the guidance contained within the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency’s ‘Official DVSA Guide to Driving Buses and Coaches’. It is only by such a proper assessment of the nature of the duty of care owed that there can be any meaningful determination as to whether there is a breach of that duty. The County Court case of Kevin Graham v Go North East Limited (20 November 2017) (not reported by LexisNexis®), highlights the fine balance involved when assessing this duty. A defendant bus driver collided with the claimant’s vehicle at a traffic light controlled crossroads. The defendant

Heads of loss associated with a road traffic accident claim When considering potential losses in a claim arising from a road traffic accident, the following should be considered: • loss of insurance excess • loss of no claims bonus • insurer’s outlay less the claimant’s excess (ie cost of vehicle repairs where the car can be repaired economically or the market value of the vehicle less its salvage value where the vehicle is written off) • hire charges (for further information, see Practice Notes: Credit hire—an introduction, Credit hire—common liability issues and Credit hire—disputes on quantum) • vehicle recovery charges • vehicle storage charges • miscellaneous expenses, ie those incurred in managing the

Failing to provide a specimen It is an offence contrary to section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988), if, having been required to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine for analysis, a person fails to do so, without reasonable excuse (after having/not having driven or attempted to drive). For detailed guidance on the requirement to provide a specimen, see Practice Note: Evidential specimens in road traffic cases. Failing to give permission for a laboratory test There is a separate offence which can be committed where a person provides a sample of blood but fails, without reasonable excuse, to give permission for a laboratory test of that specimen of blood. They would be guilty of an offence under RTA 1988, s 7(A). Elements of the failing to provide a specimen offence Required A constable can require a defendant to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine in the course of an investigation into whether the defendant has committed a drink or drugs based offence

It is an offence to fail to co-operate with a preliminary test when required to do so, without reasonable excuse. This is a summary-only offence. The elements of the offence are: • failing • to co-operate with • a preliminary test • when required, and • without reasonable excuse It is for the prosecution to prove the elements of the offence, to the criminal standard beyond reasonable doubt. The Deregulation Act 2015 (DA 2015) has removed the mandatory requirement for a preliminary breath test to be undertaken before the evidential breath tests are conducted. This therefore gives the police the option to move directly to the evidential breath tests at the roadside where a portable evidential breath test device is available. The ability to require a preliminary breath test remains available. Failing to co-operate 'Failing' includes refusing. If a defendant is requested to co-operate with a preliminary test, and has the opportunity to do so, yet chooses not to, then there is clearly a failure to co-operate. Sometimes

This Practice Note lists the traffic authorities which may control road traffic on highways under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984), and summarises the general duty of a traffic authority regarding road traffic. It explains the procedure for fulfilling this duty through the making of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) under RTRA 1984, including the circumstances in which the consent of the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers is needed before a Traffic Order can be made. What is a Traffic Regulation Order? A TRO is an official order made by a traffic authority under RTRA 1984 that details the nature and extent of traffic restrictions in a certain area. These restrictions can relate to: • restricting access to or regulating the use of a road (or of any part if) • parking • bus lanes, and • moving traffic Local traffic authorities Under RTRA 1984, as amended, the traffic authorities that may control road traffic on highways are: • the Secretary of State for Transport—on highways where they