A court ruling has clarified who is liable when a driver fails to exit a roundabout correctly and causes a crash. The case, Grace v Tanner, involved two motorists travelling through a roundabout on the A23 dual carriageway from London to Crawley.
Roundabout collision scenario
Mrs Grace was riding a motorcycle in the right-hand lane, while Mrs Tanner was driving a car in the left-hand lane. Mrs Grace attempted to exit the roundabout in the right-hand lane to proceed onto the right-hand lane of the A23 dual carriageway, presuming that Mrs Tanner would do likewise in the left-hand lane. However, she did not - instead, she continued around the roundabout and the two vehicles collided.
In the initial court hearing, the judge held the car driver, Mrs Tanner, wholly free of blame. However, Mrs Grace lodged an appeal, "saying that this is a 50/50 case where each party was to blame for this very unfortunate accident".
Appeal ruling
Mrs Grace's legal team stopped short of claiming she was entirely blameless, conceding there was negligence on her part in turning into the car. Nevertheless, they argued Mrs Tanner was "equally negligent". The appeal judges agreed.
Lord Justice Schiemann said Mrs Tanner had not been negligent in missing her turn. The judge said that was merely an accident, but said that "in those circumstances you should be aware that there may well be somebody on the outside lane who will be wanting to go down that dual carriageway". The judge said Mrs Tanner "forgot to bear that possibility in mind" and that that was, in fact, "negligent", meaning that a 50/50 division of responsibility was the appropriate way to resolve the case.
Different judgement in another case
In a separate case, the Financial Ombudsman Service was called upon to adjudicate a dispute between a motorist, Miss A, and Admiral Insurance. Miss A found herself in a comparable position to Mrs Grace, whereby another driver was in the incorrect lane for her exit and continued around the roundabout, colliding with Miss A as she departed.
Admiral deemed it a 50/50 liability situation, as in Grace v Tanner. However, Miss A escalated her complaint to the financial ombudsman, who sided with her and ruled she bore no responsibility for the incident. The ombudsman noted the circumstances differed slightly from Grace v Tanner, pointing out that Miss A was further ahead than the other driver and that, as the other driver struck the rear of Miss A's vehicle, fault lay with them.
Highway Code guidance
Highway Code rules 184-190 address roundabouts. Rule 186 specifically addresses signalling and positioning. It states that when taking the first exit to the left, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise, you should signal left and approach in the left-hand lane, keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave.
When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, you should signal right and approach in the right-hand lane, keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout, and signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want. When taking any intermediate exit, you should select the appropriate lane on approach to the roundabout, you should not normally need to signal on approach, stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout, and signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
As demonstrated, while this guidance indicates which lane corresponds to which exit, it fails to address a scenario where a motorist in a right-hand lane maintains that lane through the roundabout and into an intermediate (or 12 o'clock) exit.
Expert analysis of driver errors
Popular TikTok user Big Jobber gives regular and detailed advice on road rules, including whether it's ever acceptable to overtake another car on their left-hand side (also known as "undertaking"). Referring to the incident between the blue and white cars above, he says: "It's accepted that sometimes people will be in the wrong lane, people get lost and they make mistakes, especially on roundabouts. In continuing around the outer edge of the roundabout incorrectly, the blue car driver has not taken into consideration how their decision would affect other road users, namely those looking to exit the roundabout to go straight ahead at the second exit.
"And as for the driver of the white car, they haven't taken into consideration what effect them exiting from the inner lane would have on a vehicle using the outer lane, either correctly or incorrectly. Ultimately the driver of the blue car, when realising that they were in the wrong lane for their intended exit, should have been checking that it was safe and OK to proceed around the roundabout to where they wanted to exit and be ready to take evasive action to avoid a collision. And as for the driver of the white car, they should be checking that it's safe and clear to exit from the inner lane and also be ready to avoid a collision."
He added: "What could each driver do differently to avoid a collision? Well, the driver of the blue car could take the exit they didn't intend on taking and then turn around and come back and use the roundabout again correctly. The driver of the white car could remain staggered on the roundabout and not look to overtake a vehicle on the roundabout, thereby keeping a pocket of safe space around their vehicle. And when it was obviously unsafe to exit they could have just gone round the roundabout again and then exited when it was safe to do so."
He concurred that, much like the Grace v Tanner case, this particular scenario would in all likelihood be resolved on a 50-50 split liability basis.
