Automatism defence in RTA claims

The automatism defence can arise when a driver causes an accident while acting without conscious awareness or control of their actions. It is a complex legal issue that can affect whether a driver is held responsible for injuries and damage caused by a road traffic accident.

In personal injury claims, a defendant may raise this defence by arguing that their actions were involuntary. In other words, they were not consciously controlling what they were doing when the accident happened.

For example, a driver might experience an unexpected seizure or lose consciousness while driving. If this causes an accident, they may argue that they had no control over their actions and should not be held responsible for the resulting injuries.

However, the circumstances leading up to the accident are important. The fact that a driver experienced a medical episode does not automatically mean that an automatism defence will succeed.

A driver may seek to rely on automatism if they experienced an involuntary medical episode that prevented them from controlling their vehicle.

Examples include a seizure or unexpectedly losing consciousness behind the wheel. In these circumstances, the driver may argue that the accident happened because of something beyond their control.

Whether this argument succeeds depends on the individual circumstances, particularly what the driver knew about their health before the accident.

If the driver had no reason to anticipate the medical episode, this may support their argument that their actions were involuntary.

However, if they knew or should have known about a condition that could impair their driving, their decision to drive may prevent them from successfully relying on automatism.

A driver’s medical history can be central to determining whether an automatism defence is valid.

For example, if someone knew they had a medical condition that might affect their ability to drive safely but chose to drive anyway, this could defeat their defence.

The distinction is important because the investigation must consider more than the driver’s condition at the moment of the accident. It must also examine what happened beforehand and whether there were reasons for the driver to anticipate a medical episode.

This is why a detailed investigation of the driver’s medical history and the events leading up to the collision can be so important.

Yes. An automatism defence can be challenged, particularly where the evidence raises questions about the driver’s medical history or their knowledge of a condition that could affect their ability to drive.

The fact that a driver claims to have experienced a seizure or lost consciousness does not, by itself, establish that they cannot be held responsible for an accident.

The circumstances leading up to the collision must be examined carefully.

Medical records, DVLA correspondence and expert evidence can all play a role in establishing whether the defence is supported by the available information.

For someone who has suffered injuries in a road traffic accident, this investigation can be particularly important where the defendant’s insurer is relying on automatism to dispute responsibility.

Our specialists have experience of cases involving serious injuries where an automatism defence has been raised.

In one case, a claimant suffered several serious orthopaedic injuries in a road traffic accident.

The defendant’s insurers raised an automatism defence, arguing that the driver had experienced a seizure behind the wheel. They also maintained that the driver had no previous medical history that would have suggested such an episode might occur.

The defence was investigated thoroughly, including the circumstances surrounding the collision.

Following these investigations, the automatism defence was unsuccessful, and compensation was recovered for the injured claimant.

This case demonstrates why an automatism defence should be examined carefully rather than accepted simply because a driver reports an unexpected medical episode.

If you’ve been injured in a road traffic accident and the other driver’s insurer raises an automatism defence, it can create uncertainty about whether you will be able to recover compensation.

However, the defence is not automatically successful. Its application depends on the circumstances of the accident, including the driver’s medical condition, their knowledge of any relevant risks and the evidence available.

A careful investigation can help establish whether the driver genuinely had no control over their actions and whether there were warning signs before the accident.

The outcome will depend on the individual facts of the case.