Randall v Motor Insurers Bureau [1969]
- Reported: [1969] 1 All ER 21
- Year: 1969
- Court: Queen's Bench Division
FACTS:
The Claimant, Mr Randall, worked at Alleyn’s School, Dulwich as the school sergeant. In February 1964, a piece of land at the back of the school, bordered to the north by Hillsborough road was being cleared as a building site. The site was private property belonging to the school. Entrance to the site was from Hillsborough road, across the south pedestrian pavement of that road which was some seven feet wide, and through a gap in a chestnut paling fence which ran along the boundary between the school property and the pavement of Hillsborough road. A rough, unmade, track or driveway led into the site from this gap in the fence. Metal tubular poles had been fixed to which a barrier could be erected. The barrier had been put in position on 11 February 1964, on the orders of the headmaster of the school because it had come to his knowledge that persons with lorries had been using the site at the back of the school for the purposes of dumping loads of rubbish. The Claimant had been given instructions to see that such unauthorised tipping of rubbish should not occur again.
On 12 February 1964, the Claimant went to the site. He found there a large Dodge lorry which had backed from Hillsborough Road across the pavement and up the drive of the site. The barrier had been removed. The lorry was stationary no doubt ready to dump its load of rubbish. The driver of the lorry was Mr Neville Scott. He had no permission from anyone with authority to give permission to take his lorry on to the school’s land or to dump rubbish there. The Claimant started talking to the driver, who was very abusive and used obscene language. The Claimant told the driver that he would be reported to the police. Mr Scott started to move the lorry forward. The Claimant told the driver it was no good driving away as he had the vehicle registration number and the police would be sent for. Mr Scott then stopped the lorry. The Claimant then sent a fellow colleague to call the police while in the meantime positioning himself in the middle of the drive, about six yards in front of the lorry, so that he was two yards inside the boundary of the school property.
Despite the Claimant being in the middle of the drive Mr Scott decided to depart. The Claimant jumped to the left and the front wing of the lorry caught him on his right leg. The Claimant became trapped between the moving lorry and the escarpment of a raised bank which abutted the drive on the east side. The claimant fell to the ground, flat on his bank, with his head and shoulders just inside the boundary of the school property. The rear offside wheel of the lorry then passed over the Claimant’s right leg. He suffered a comminuted fracture of the tibia and fibula of the left leg. At that moment when the rear wheel of the lorry had passed over the Claimant’s leg the front wheels were well out into Hillsborough Road. Mr Scott proceeded to drive off. The Claimant was then lying so close to the boundary between the school property and Hillsborough Road that, although his broken left leg was just on the school side of the boundary, his right leg was twisted over on to the pavement.
Mr Scott was prosecuted at the Central Criminal Court in connection with these incidents and was convicted and imprisoned. The Claimant issued a writ against Mr Scott for damages for his personal injury. The Claimant was successful and was awarded £1,073 damages and £243 16s 2d. The present Defendants, the Motor Insurer’s Bureau, were given notice of the various stages of the proceedings, but did not take part in them. Mr Scott did have an insurance policy: but the company repudiated liability on grounds which included non-disclosure and the damage which the Claimant suffered was not covered by the policy.
The action is brought on the agreement dated the 17 June 1946, between the Ministry of Transport and the Defendants, the Motor Insurer’s Bureau. The agreement comes into operation if a judgement has been obtained against any person in respect of any liability which is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under Part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1930. if such a judgement is not satisfied in seven days, the defendant will satisfy the judgement.
The Claimant brings the claim against the Defendants for failure to pay or satisfy this debt. The case was bought in the Queen’s Bench Division before Justice Megaw.
HELD:
Justice Megaw
In order for the 1946 agreement to become effective, two factors needed to be satisfied. Firstly, the existence of an effective insurance policy and secondly that the accident was caused by or arose out of the use of a vehicle on a road.
The first factor was satisfied straightforwardly without any dispute from the Defendants. The policy Mr Scott had in effect at the time was covered by section 203 (3) (a) of the Road Traffic Act 1960.
The real issue in dispute was whether the bodily injury was caused by the use of the Dodge Lorry on a road. Section 257 defines road as;
“any highway and any other road to which public have access…”
Justice Megaw took the common sense approach. In the ordinary use of language the lorry was being used on a road, Hillsborough Road, at the time when the Claimant sustained the serious injury of which he complains.
The determining factor was the time when the wheel of the lorry ran over the claimant’s leg. At that time the greater part of the lorry was on the road, and the lorry as a whole was using the road. The fact that the rear part of the lorry including the wheel which ran over the Claimant’s leg, was still, just, on private property does not affect the conclusion that the lorry was then using the road. It was the use of the lorry on the road, the fact that it was being driven further on to the road in order to drive away along the road, which caused the injury. Certainly the injury arose out of the use of the lorry on the road.
Judgement was found in favour of the Claimant.
Related posts:
