Tram operator sued over e-scooter rider death at Waddon Marsh West footpath crossing

[yorkie]

Tram operator sued over death of teenage e-scooter rider

The family of Reuben Abakah seek damages after he was hit by a tram as he crossed a line in Croydon.

www.bbc.co.uk

The furniture delivery worker had his hood up and did not slow down as he entered Waddon Marsh West footpath crossing at the same time as the tram, which was travelling at 37mph (59.5km/h)...

...The speed limit for trams using the crossing has since been reduced from 43mph to 31mph...

...He went on: "I know nothing can bring Reuben back, but I believe the tram should not have been travelling as fast as it was."

The family's lawyer, Ben Posford of Osbornes Law, said it "shouldn't have mattered" that Abakah "didn't look properly".

I think the location may be here, as it is the only crossing immediately west of Waddon Marsh:

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.

www.google.com

While this is a sad case, I find it disappointing to see public money spent on such legal cases, which seem unlikely to be for the wider public good.

On the face of it, given this is a former railway line, with it being very clear that a railway/tramway track is being crossed and clear signage to this effect, it seems not at all unreasonable that the speed limit would be 43mph, and I am not at all convinced by the idea that there is no need for anyone to look when crossing rail/tram lines on the basis that drivers need to go slow enough to stop in case someone crossing doesn't look.

The message seems to be that public transport users should be forced to endure longer journeys on the basis that scooter riders have carte blanche to not bother looking, and it becomes the tram driver's problem, which doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I can’t see that legal aid is being spent on this case. It looks like a ‘hopeful’ personal injury claim being brought privately.

But yes, these sorts of situations are always sad but there really does need to be more responsibility placed on the people who don’t look.

 

[D1511]

I wonder if it was a TfL concession (Lime or Dott) e-scooter or a privately owned one. If the latter, it ought to be an open and shut case.
I also think it requires a particular type of chambers to take a case like this on.

 

[greatkingrat]

Do the trams have the equivalent of whistle boards before crossings? One of the arguments seems to be about when the first warning was sounded. If the driver didn't sound the correct warnings, or sounded then later than they are supposed to, then the operator could be held partially liable.

 

[Meole]

The post accident operator decision to reduce the speed for trams could be seen as an admission of guilt.

 

[bramling]

Tram operator sued over death of teenage e-scooter rider

The family of Reuben Abakah seek damages after he was hit by a tram as he crossed a line in Croydon.

www.bbc.co.uk

I think the location may be here, as it is the only crossing immediately west of Waddon Marsh:

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.

www.google.com

While this is a sad case, I find it disappointing to see public money spent on such legal cases, which seem unlikely to be for the wider public good.

On the face of it, given this is a former railway line, with it being very clear that a railway/tramway track is being crossed and clear signage to this effect, it seems not at all unreasonable that the speed limit would be 43mph, and I am not at all convinced by the idea that there is no need for anyone to look when crossing rail/tram lines on the basis that drivers need to go slow enough to stop in case someone crossing doesn't look.

The message seems to be that public transport users should be forced to endure longer journeys on the basis that scooter riders have carte blanche to not bother looking, and it becomes the tram driver's problem, which doesn't make much sense to me.

Completely agree that it’s somewhat objectionable for public money to be spent on the legal wrangling around this, and for tram users to have their journeys slowed down.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I wonder if it was a TfL concession (Lime or Dott) e-scooter or a privately owned one. [...]

Whilst TfL have a co-ordinating role for e-scooter rental scheme trials across Greater London, it's down to the relevant London Borough ('LB') to decide whether they wish to participate. Neither LB Croydon - where this incident took place - nor the adjacent LB Sutton to the west are participants in the trial.

 

[D1511]

Whilst TfL have a co-ordinating role for e-scooter rental scheme trials across Greater London, it's down to the relevant London Borough ('LB') to decide whether they wish to participate. Neither LB Croydon - where this incident took place - nor the adjacent LB Sutton to the west are participants in the trial.

Thanks for clarifying. We had them in E London. In that case, it was an illegal vehicle not permitted on a public road.

 

[Meole]

Thanks for clarifying. We had them in E London. In that case, it was an illegal vehicle not permitted on a public road.

This was not a public road though ?

 

[D1511]

This was not a public road though ?

Depends if it was an adopted footpath or not.

 

[Acathater]

If it was a privately owned e-scooter is it not - by definition - illegal?

 

[Trackman]

If it was a privately owned e-scooter is it not - by definition - illegal?

It could have been insured/licensed and be within legal specs etc.
We don't have the full details.

 

[Acathater]

It could have been insured/licensed and be within legal specs etc.
We don't have the full details.

I thought only the for-hire ones were legal to use?

 

[35B]

I’m not worried about the public money, but the precedent. The lawyers are running an argument that liability is with the tramway, not the person crossing.

Ignoring the (important) issues about the deceased’s own culpability in not looking out, any finding in his favour will have the effect of making tram (and, by implication, rail) operators responsible for incidents where something happens. The lawyer is explicitly stating that, in a situation in which the foot crossing is secondary to the tramway or railway, the duty is on the operator to mitigate against “zoning out” by someone using the crossing.

However, I think this is ambulance chasing - the tell being that it is the operator that is being sued, with no action against the driver.

 

[Snow1964]

Whilst it is sad, it is also sad that a law firm wants to do ambulance chasing for this for someone who apparently took no responsibility for their own safety.

In a way as the tram operator is being put through this, I hope they turn the tables, win and because they were claimed against, counter claim against the public liability (usually part of home insurance) to recover any legal fees and disruption expenses.

Normally I wouldn't recommend upsetting a deceased family by claiming for moral reasons, but as they have started legal proceedings with aim of money grabbing, I really don't see why tram operator should be out pocket.

 

[AlterEgo]

That tram crossing has excellent visibility for pedestrians. It's not a deathtrap and this is more like crossing a sparsely used 40mph road. I can't see much merit in the family's arguments here.

 

[35B]

Whilst it is sad, it is also sad that a law firm wants to do ambulance chasing for this for someone who apparently took no responsibility for their own safety.

In a way as the tram operator is being put through this, I hope they turn the tables, win and because they were claimed against, counter claim against the public liability (usually part of home insurance) to recover any legal fees and disruption expenses.

Normally I wouldn't recommend upsetting a deceased family by claiming for moral reasons, but as they have started legal proceedings with aim of money grabbing, I really don't see why tram operator should be out pocket.

I think they’d be very ill advised to do that. Far better to use whatever procedural methods there may be to deny the lawyers their fee, and make them much less likely to try this on again.

 

[edwin_m]

I believe the law on e-scooters, other than the legitimate rental ones, is that they can only be used on private land with the permission of the landowner.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Completely agree that it’s somewhat objectionable for public money to be spent on the legal wrangling around this, and for tram users to have their journeys slowed down.

Public money isn't being spent on the legal case, though, the matter (as far as I can tell) is being funded privately. The defendant, Tramlink, isn't a public body either.

As for trams being slowed down, Tramlink reduced the speed limit of their own volition after the accident. This could undermine any defence: if the speed limit was appropriate for the location at the time of the accident, why did they reduce it afterwards?

However, I think this is ambulance chasing - the tell being that it is the operator that is being sued, with no action against the driver.

I agree that it probably is ambulance chasing, but the fact that they're not suing the driver isn't unusual. It's more unusual to go after an individual rather than the company which employs them.

In this case, the driver probably didn't do anything wrong- they weren't speeding, for instance. But Tramlink cutting the speed limit could be construed as an admission that the previous speed limit was inappropriate for the location. It's not always quite as clear cut as it first looks.

 

[35B]

Public money isn't being spent on the legal case, though, the matter (as far as I can tell) is being funded privately. The defendant, Tramlink, isn't a public body either.

As for trams being slowed down, Tramlink reduced the speed limit of their own volition after the accident. This could undermine any defence: if the speed limit was appropriate for the location at the time of the accident, why did they reduce it afterwards?


I agree that it probably is ambulance chasing, but the fact that they're not suing the driver isn't unusual. It's more unusual to go after an individual rather than the company which employs them.

In this case, the driver probably didn't do anything wrong- they weren't speeding, for instance. But Tramlink cutting the speed limit could be construed as an admission that the previous speed limit was inappropriate for the location. It's not always quite as clear cut as it first looks.

I agree, though I think the inference between a general risk and the specific incident is probably a stretch. And the BBC report suggests to this layman that a) a tram running at the lower limit wouldn't have stopped and b) the limit remains one at which a tram/human collision is likely to be fatal.

I personally can't get beyond the basic fact of the deceased being on a wheeled vehicle and not just being inattentive, but dressed so that they lost their peripheral senses.

 

[Meole]

I agree, though I think the inference between a general risk and the specific incident is probably a stretch. And the BBC report suggests to this layman that a) a tram running at the lower limit wouldn't have stopped and b) the limit remains one at which a tram/human collision is likely to be fatal.

I personally can't get beyond the basic fact of the deceased being on a wheeled vehicle and not just being inattentive, but dressed so that they lost their peripheral senses.

The careful obscuring of facial detail with mask and hood is required to avoid recognition on such machines, this obviously reduces awareness as consequence, clearly reality and the law are not aligned, accidents will happen until these machines are legal.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Completely agree that it’s somewhat objectionable for public money to be spent on the legal wrangling around this, and for tram users to have their journeys slowed down.

Public money isn't being spent on the legal case, though, the matter (as far as I can tell) is being funded privately. The defendant, Tramlink, isn't a public body either. [...]

To be precise, the defendent is Tram Operations Limited (TOL) - a subsidiary of First Group - which has the contract with TfL to operate the service until 2030.

The "Tramlink" name isn't really in 'official' use these days, which I think is a bit of a shame - TfL use the brand "London Trams", in my experience most people (unsurprisingly) just say "the tram".

 

[Trackman]

I thought only the for-hire ones were legal to use?

No, you can own one if it complies with the law.

 

[fwsmVor]

Thanks for clarifying. We had them in E London. In that case, it was an illegal vehicle not permitted on a public road.

Does that immediately get the case thrown out? A bicycle with no front light is also technically an "illegal vehicle". Would a heroin trafficker struck by a tram with a coat full of the goods be an "illegal pedestrian"?

(disclaimer: I also think this case is bunk)

 

[D1511]

Does that immediately get the case thrown out? A bicycle with no front light is also technically an "illegal vehicle". Would a heroin trafficker struck by a tram with a coat full of the goods be an "illegal pedestrian"?

(disclaimer: I also think this case is bunk)

I'm not certain, but I might have thought that, if you are involved in a vehicular incident of any kind while using a vehicle that is expressly prohibited on the public highway, your case would immediately be rather flimsy.

 

[35B]

I'm not certain, but I might have thought that, if you are involved in a vehicular incident of any kind while using a vehicle that is expressly prohibited on the public highway, your case would immediately be rather flimsy.

H&S duties on landowners are onerous, even in cases of trespass.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, you can own one if it complies with the law.

That is true but it's a bit disingenuous because there are none that comply with the law at present. Only e-bikes do. The only legal way to ride an e-scooter in a public place is for it to be a hire scooter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Apr 2026 ==

Does that immediately get the case thrown out? A bicycle with no front light is also technically an "illegal vehicle". Would a heroin trafficker struck by a tram with a coat full of the goods be an "illegal pedestrian"?

There would absolutely be a consideration of contributory negligence in any compensation claim were a vehicle involved in an accident not to be complying with the law in a manner that was in any way contributory to the accident. To what extent that would apply would depend on the extent of lawbreaking - cycling without a headlamp would be one end, driving at 100mph while trafficking County Lines drugs (for example) would be the other.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I wonder whether Death By Misadventure (Driving [i.e. riding] without Due Care and Attention) will be set, as:
"The furniture delivery worker had his hood up and did not slow down as he entered Waddon Marsh West footpath crossing at the same time as the tram"

 

[AndrewE]

I wonder whether Death By Misadventure (Driving [riding] without Due Care and Attention) will be set, as:
"The furniture delivery worker had his hood up and did not slow down as he entered Waddon Marsh West footpath crossing at the same time as the tram"

Exactly: a prosecution for driving without due care and attention would have been in order if the driver had survived (regardless of the legailty of the vehicle.)

This sort of legal action should be stamped down on as hard as possible - maximising the costs put at the door of the ambulance-chasing lawyers wherever possible. I had the experience of being sued over a fabricated accident... luckily my house insurance (Coop back then) took it up and showed it was baseless... I suspect that the idiot making the claim was near-bankrupted, as the business model of the "lawyers" he used was to get massively inflated costs - legal and medical - back off claimants who started such actions after being suckered in by the company's advertising!

p.s. another candidiate for a Darwin award!

 

[philthetube]

It is a pity that this thread is tucked away in this section as it has relevance across the railway.