FACTS:-

A passenger in a car was injured in a road accident.  The claimant sustained personal injuries in the defendant’s car.  The car was driven by the defendant and was overturned.  The claimant alleged that the defendant was negligent as the brakes of the car were defective.  The defendant denied liability and claimed he swerved to avoid the untraced motor-cyclist.  Although the Defendant was not insured against claims by passengers, the Defendants’ insurers had made an ex gratia payment of £750 to the claimant.  

In this case, the claimant Miss Jill Adams, suing by Mrs Alice Adams, her mother and next friend, claimed damages against the defendant, Mr. Robert James Andrews, in respect of personal injuries which she sustained whilst travelling as a passenger in the defendant’s motor car when the car overturned on the A 40 on 25 July 1959.  The claimant, Miss Jill Adams sustained severe physical injuries. 

According to the claimant’s statement of claim, on or about 25 July 1959, she was a passenger in a Vauxhall motor car which was driven by the defendant along the A40 in an easterly direction when, at a point near the junction with the A412 at Denham, Buckinghamshire, by reason of the defendant’s negligence, the motor car crossed to the wrong side of the road, struck the kerb and overturned, and caused the claimant to sustain personal injuries.

The claimant alleged that the Defendant was negligent in that he drove the motor car when its braking system was not, as he well knew or ought to have known, in good or sufficiently good working order; drove too fast in the circumstances; failed to keep a proper look-out; drove in the wrong part of the road and on to the grass verge on the off side thereof; failed to have or to keep proper control of the motor car; and failed so to act in and concerning the management and/or control of the motor car as to avoid injury to the plaintiff.

Further or alternatively, the claimant alleged that the Defendant was in breach of his statutory obligation under Regulation 76 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955 , in that the braking system was not maintained in good and efficient working order and properly adjusted.

In his defence, the defendant denied that the accident was caused by his negligence, or by any breach of statutory duty.

The defendant alleged that the accident was caused, or contributed to, by the negligence of a motor-cyclist who was then approaching the Vauxhall along the road in that the motor-cyclist drove too fast; maintained no or no proper look-out; at a time when the defendant had drawn out into the centre of the road in order to overtake and was in the act of overtaking another vehicle, drove down the centre of the road straight at the defendant, thereby causing the defendant to swerve to his off side in order to avoid colliding with the motor-cyclist; failed to drive reasonably close to his near side; did not apply his brakes or pull up in time to allow the defendant to pass; and failed to manage or steer the motor-cycle on which he was then riding, so as to allow the defendant to pass.

Before the accident the claimant was a normal intelligent girl who enjoyed sporting activities such as swimming.  After the accident the claimant was left seriously physically harmed, this included severe brain injuries and the claimant was reduced to the intelligence of a child. 

HELD:-

Sachs, J held that the motorcyclist was solely to blame and therefore the claimants claim against the Defendant failed.  The judgement was entered for the Defendant and the Claimant’s claim was dismissed. 

Sachs J held that the accident was caused by the appalling driving of an un-identified motor cyclist who had failed to stop after the accident.  The Defendant was not insured against liability to passengers. Had he been at all to blame, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau would not even have considered making an ex gratia payment to the Claimant. As it was, the Bureau would have an unfettered discretion whether to make such a payment. The Claimant’s solicitors would be ordered to report to the court what attitude the Bureau adopted. The present position enabled insurance companies to have a potential avenue of escape from liabilities which in principle they had accepted. Legislation was required to deal with this matter, and to promote the elementary matter of humanity and civic duty of witnesses of an accident to give their names to the police.

Sachs J. said in cases where the liability of a driver is under the Road Traffic Acts “required to be covered by a policy of insurance,” either the driver of the hit-and-run car is insured as by law required—in which case one of the member companies of the Bureau would normally have to pay any damages awarded by the Court, or else he is not insured, in which case the Bureau would likewise have to pay if he had been found and judgment entered against him. That the injured person cannot recover as of right merely because he or she cannot secure a judgment as the driver has successfully evaded identification is lamentable and should not obtain; it merely provides for insurance companies as a whole a potential avenue of escape from liabilities which in principle they have accepted.

Sachs J considered in his judgement who was liable to pay the sum of money due to the claimant.  It was found that the defendant was not insured against claims by passengers and the Motor Insurers Bureau had not intervened in the matter.

Related posts:

1. Adams v Commissioner of Police 1980