Martin v Dean and Another [1971]

FACTS:-

On the evening of the 15^th February 1968, the Claimant was knocked down by a motor bicycle driven by the Second Defendant. The motor bicycle which the Second Defendant was riding did not belong to him but to the First Defendant. The First Defendant had lent it to the Second Defendant, and the Second Defendant borrowed it from the First Defendant in the honest belief that the use of the motor bicycle which led to this injury which led to this injury to the Claimant as lawful and covered by a third party insurance.

This has bought the first Defendant into this action as Co-Defendant of the Second  Defendant because the Claimant says that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the Second Defendant when riding the first Defendant’s motor bicycle, and also by the First Defendant’s breach of his statutory duty by causing or permitting the Second Defendant to ride this motor cycle when there was no insurance policy, as required by the Road Traffic Act, covering his liability to a person in the position of the Claimant contrary to section 201 Road Traffic Act 1960.

HELD:-

A claimant was entitled to recover against the owner of a vehicle for breach of his statutory duty to see that a borrower was covered by insurance.  Although the plaintiff was only entitled to recover against the owner for the amount of the damage which he had in fact suffered by reason of that breach, that was the difference between the amount of damages awarded against the borrower of the vehicle and the amount which the borrower was able to pay in satisfaction of that judgment.  When the borrower was of substantial means and able to pay the amount of the damages immediately, the plaintiff would only be entitled to nominal damages against the owner.  In determining whether, and to what extent, the borrower was able to satisfy the judgment, the court was entitled to take into account the fact that a judgment would normally be satisfied within a few weeks.  It was not necessary for the claimant to show that the borrower would never be able to satisfy the judgment.  Having regard to the earnings and other circumstances of the second defendant the maximum sum he could pay within a few weeks was £25; adopting a broad approach, and having regard to the fact that the total sum awarded was £567, it could be said that the Claimant had in effect lost virtually and in substance prompt payment of the whole of this sum.  The judgement was entered against both the first and second defendant for the whole sum.

Related posts:

1. Klein v Caluori [1971]
2. Hewitt v Bonvin [1940]