Ormrod v Crosville Motor Services Ltd 1953

FACTS:-

The owner of a motor car was attending the Monte Carlo motor rally, a friend of his, under an arrangement made between them, was to drive the owner’s car from Birkenhead to Monte Carlo.  He was to carry a suitcase belonging to the owner of the car, was to make the journey in his own time and manner, was to visit friends in Bayeux, and was to arrive in Monte Carlo before the end of the rally.  Thereafter he and the owner of the car were to go on holiday with the car in Switzerland.  While on direct route from Birkenhead to the coast to cross to France, owing partly to the negligence of the friend, the car collided with a motor omnibus which was damaged. 

The Claimant brought actions for damages against the defendants alleging that the injuries were caused by the negligent driving of the first defendant’s servants

HELD:-

The third party’s appeal was dismissed.  At the time of the accident the car was being used wholly or partly for the car owner’s purposes, and therefore the friend while driving it, was the agent of the owner.  In so far as the friend was guilty of negligence, the owner was vicariously liable. 

Singleton LJ held that the appeal of the third party fails.  Singleton LJ reiterated that a driver of a motor car must be doing something for the owner of the car in order to become an agent of the owner.  The mere fact of consent by the owner to the use of a chattel is not proof of agency.  In this case the purpose which the car was being used for on the morning of the accident was either that it should be used by the owner, the third party or that it should be used for the joint purposes of the male plaintiff and the third party when it reached Monte Carlo.  Singleton LJ held that at the time of the accident the male plaintiff was the agent of the third party

Denning stated in his judgement it is often been supposed that the owner of a vehicle is only liable for the negligence of the driver if his servant is acting in the course of his business.  Denning LJ held that this is not correct.  The owner is also liable if the driver is his agent that is if the driver is, with the owners consent, driving the car on the owner’s business or for the owner’s purposes.  In this case the owner wanted the car driven to Monte Carlo, the driver wanted to go with his wife to Monte Carlo and he intended to visit friends along the way.  In this case he started two or three days earlier than he would have been going solely for the owner’s purposes.

Denning highlighted the importance that the law puts a responsibility on the owner of a vehicle who allows it to go on the road in charge of someone else, no matter whether it is his servant, his friend or anyone else.  The owner only escapes liability when he lends it or hires it to a third person to be used for the purposes in which the owner has no interest or concern (Hewitt v Bonvin).  In this case Denning held that the trip to Monte Carlo must be looked at as a whole, including the proposed excursion to Normandy and as such it was undertaken with the owner’s consent for the purposes of both of them, and the owner is liable for any negligence of the driver in the course of it.  Lord Denning held that the appeal should be dismissed. 

Morris LJ agreed with the judgement.

Related posts:

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