Corfield v Groves and Another [1950]

FACTS:-

The Claimant’s husband, while crossing a road, was knocked down and fatally injured through the negligent driving by the First Defendant of a motor vehicle, the property of the Second Defendant.

At the time of the accident there was not in force in relation to the user of the vehicle by the First Defendant a policy of insurance against third party risks as required by the Road Traffic Act 1930, section 35 (1), and the owner of the vehicle was, therefore, in breach of that sub-section, and the First Defendant had no means to meet the judgement which was given against him for his tortuous act.

The Second Defendant maintained that the Claimant had suffered no damage because the latter would be compensated by virtue of a contract between the Minister of Transport and the Motor Insurers Bureau whereby the Bureau undertook to satisfy any unsatisfied judgement arising from any liability required to be covered by a policy of insurance under the Act of 1930 which was not satisfied within seven days.

The Claimant now brings an action for damages against both Defendants for negligence under the Fatal Accidents Act 1846-1908 and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous provisions) Act 1934 and further against the Second Defendant for breach of statutory duty.

The case was heard in the Kings Bench Division before Justice Hilbery.

HELD:-

The First Defendant had no policy of insurance in respect of third party risks which covered him on this occasion. The Second Defendant had no policy of insurance against third party risks covering the driving of the car by the First Defendant, but she permitted the First Defendant to drive the car without there being in existence such a policy and has been convicted before a magistrate of that offence. She was in breach of her statutory duty. In Monk v Warbey [1935] 1 KB 75 it was decided that, where there has been a breach of a statutory duty and injury has been caused to a third party, the latter may, where the person primarily liable is in such a financial position that nothing is obtainable from him, proceed directly against the person responsible for the breach.

Counsel for the Second Defendant argued that, although the first Defendant is in this financial position, nevertheless the contractual obligation on the Motor Bureau to satisfy any judgement which this court may give against the first Defendant means the Claimant has not suffered any damage.

Justice Hilbery did not believe the arguments put forward by the Defendant were well founded.

The breach of the statutory duty was a continuing breach operative at the time of the accident and the moment the tortuous act occurred the deceased man had his action for tort. At the date of his death and before she ever issued her write, there immediately accrued to the widow a right to claim under the fatal accidents act against the tortfeasor for negligently causing her husbands’ death and an enforceable claim against the Second Defendant under the decision in Monk v Warbey for any damages which she then sustained by reason of the breach by the Second Defendant of her statutory duty.

Rights against both Defendants accrued to the plaintiff immediately on her husbands death, and, therefore, it could not be said that she had suffered no damage by reason of her inability to recover against the first Defendant merely because the bureau would pay her any damages which she was awarded against him

The Second Defendant was liable to the plaintiff for the amount of damages awarded against the first Defendant by reason of her (the Second Defendant) breach of statutory duty in permitting an uninsured person to drive the car.

No related posts.