Hello and welcome to this webinar on accidents involving pedestrians, and I've given it the subtitle of Children Alcohol on Illegal activities. I wanted to pick up some of the issues that become relevant when talking about particularly accidents concerning pedestrians. My name's Niki Carter on We'll Do is we'll talk through what what tried to include. Really, I think I would argue that they're all specific changes that's called that in road traffic accidents involving pedestrians. And I think one of the first issues that's what comes to mind, particularly we take into account will think about Children cases. We need to think about age, really and contributory negligence and the relevance if you like off contributory negligence when it comes to, um, Age of the child on what really matters. So you know, are we talking above 16? It's not relevant below, for it's not relevant. We'll talk about the case law trying to establish whether that's true or no. Everything I think is, is the relevance over the presence. Let's say off alcohol in happening off the accident on and off thinking, particularly in relation to pedestrian. Now on really again, what impact does that? The presence Let's say of alcohol have when it comes to contributory negligence issues, what allegations are likely to be made? What defense is likely to be around when there is the evidence that there has been alcohol present in relation to the pedestrian? Particularly We'll talk about that, I think. Also, we need to say a word about I'm gonna say illegal acts. And I'm thinking, particularly now off the concept, The doctrine. Let's call it or ex terp I on the idea off whether illegality in the on the claimants part actually bars the claim entirely, or whether it might lead to possibly contradictory negligence issues. And I think just discussing that whole issue will be useful. We know that in terms Off Motor Insurers Bureau, we've had recent case law that throws a new light, Let's say, on the possible liability off the Motor Insurers Bureau, where an uninsured motorist has been involved in respect of a pedestrian case, there's one particular case. I want to mention that that's made a huge impact. I think, on this area on what will come to that say that as a surprise if you like Valente. In addition, I think I wanted to pick up the issue off claims against pedestrians and particularly that tends to involve our motorcyclists, but not necessarily just motorcyclists. But the idea off the pedestrian being the person against whom the claim is being fruit Scott Me interesting concept on you know, the issue. And the problem, of course, with that very often is well, who's going to pay? Who's going to pay the damages? Is it under any circumstances possible tohave the rt a insurer be the paymaster? Is it possible for the arty insurers have to pay out in those cases on how well all the criteria that come relevant? I think in terms off, let's take the first issue that we said in our contents page First, In terms of Children, I think we need to start thinking about who are we actually talking about? Now we know that civil procedure rules talk about anybody under the age off 18. As a child, online of the rules sometimes talk about miners. There's no question that the Family Law Reform Act back in 1969 reduced the age of majority to 18. So anyone under that age is, of course, a child covered by the provisions off civil procedurals in particular Part 21 a bit confusing since that act, the family your Reform Act provides that a person is no full age may be described as a minor instead of as an infant on. Certainly, the term minor is what we used to have been used in a number of statutes between 1969 and 1989 however just updating us because I think it's important until name our terms here. The Children Act 1989 Children Act uses the term child throughout. On that definition, child's defined to someone under the age off 18. We will probably ought to add that generally and again. We just ought to be aware of this. In the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to 1969. Child generally means somebody under the age of 14 off a certain purposes. Those acts referred to a person who has attained the age of 14 and is under the age of 18 as a young person on and it's worth. Also just mentioning in Scotland are child is for most legal purposes, someone under the age off 16. I think being aware of the differences on the various act is important. I mean again, you may have cases concerning the Animals Act 1971 Animals Act. An exception to that actually used. That act in a scenario where you bring in came against the Keeper on animal knowledge of an animal's dangerous characteristics by a member of the household under the age of 16 to the head of the household, keeper of the animal is relevant, so under the age of 16 is used in that act, is likely to be a relevant consideration if you like, when we could look at contradictory negligence as to whether somebody is always know. 16. Whilst we know that Part 21 of the rules talks about someone, being over the age of 18 16 may be relevant in respect to calm. They're going well. Look at that in a moment in this country, of course, you could drive a moped head on some tractors and trailers from the age of 16. Cars and motorcycles from 17 on the age of consent is, of course, 16 on a young person can marry at age with parental consent. The law does recognise that a young person below the age of 16 may or may not have a degree of maturity on understanding to fall important judgments in respect to their own actions of consequences on we won't go into details. But you may remember the case in that regard off Gillick on the West Norfolk Unwise Beach Area Health Authority from 1985 which went to the House of Lords at the time. So we know one of the issues we have to consider is when we talk about a what do we mean over the age off 16? The question off relevance of the age will depend very much on the circumstances. Does it matter if somebody 16 17 rating when it comes to contributory negligence, we need to Marriot coffee like the age of the child with what the Law Reform Contributory Negligence Act has to say on? Certainly, the act introduced a new concept in doing away with contributory negligence is an absolute or complete defense, which it was prior to that on replacing it with the ability of the court to adjust the recovery of the claimant who wasn't partly fault by reference to what is just and equitable in the act says that is important are one such circumstances. The circumstances it's suggested in the act will be the age off the common and his or her ability to appreciate the risks and consequence or his or her actions. The standard of care that an adult to demonstrate is assessed objectively in that the claimant is assumed to be of normal intelligence and skill in all the circumstances on That's true, even if the item in question is suffering from mental illness or impairment of ability to make judgments. But in the case of a child, standard of care is expected to be modified. But But how does that work? Is it by reference to objective criteria where the claimant was required to show any that degree of care reasonable in a child of that age? Or where efforts to is that it? Or is it by reference to subjective assessment of that particular child's understanding? If the judge is going to assess a child's responsibility for damage on assess it on the basis of what is just and equitable, should the child's maturity and understanding be a relevant consideration, we'll see a case on short local Jackson Murray where the court off appeal reduced. The claimants are 13 claimants country between negligence from 90% the original court to 50% so that there's always a possibility. And that's concerned a pedestrian unexpectedly stepping out into the road. And it's long since been the view of the course that a collision between a car on a pedestrian. In that scenario, the assumption will be that the car driver is primarily at fault on. We see that very clearly set out in the case of Eagle and Chambers from 2004. Incidentally, a really useful case. Think you ever got pedestrian case? Because there are some fantastic comments in the judgment about the relationship between cars and pedestrians on the longer ability, pedestrians on the disproportionate, if you like damage causing potential between the two in terms of the relevance of the age of the child. One thing that we can certainly say through looking at examples on booking authorities is that below the age of four, it's very, very rare to find a contributory negligence finding against a child. Now that probably doesn't really surprise. It's much on the idea that is, if you've got a troll that young. One of the things you may be looking to see is to think Well, hang on. Might it be a claim where the parents might be one of the parties in the proceedings on? So there isn't technically in law on age below which a child is incapable of comic? That's not true. There is a bomb. But the reality is an older child, perhaps well into their teens, is seen to have our greater understanding off the world on. It's going to be that greater understanding, which is sufficient so that on attribution of Fault might have very little difference in findings than an adult. We could see when you'll slide the Athenian on Hubble on Cole's case from 2012 which went to the Court of Appeal concerning a a young cyclist on the court took the view that the claimant being around the age of 16 just over 16 months into being 16 was irrelevant. No special consideration should be given set the court appeal for the fact that the claimant was 16 at 16 the claim it was considered to be old enough to have all the same. If you like assessment, Cape abilities hasn't paddle on. Certainly the earlier judge's decision in relation to the boy Waas, the court decided, not appropriate. There was no reason to give on the claimant of ah, greater break, if you like on Corn Neck for the fact that the claimant Waas under the around the age of 16 he just didn't make that much difference. He should be treated as if he were on adult certainly, you know, going back. But in terms of authorities got from Thorne, we had Lord Denning say very young Children cannot be guilty of contributory negligence on goes on to talk about all the Children and the fact that that may make very little difference if you have a child who is around the age of 16 or someone who's around the age of 18 may make very little difference in terms off contradiction. Negligence findings in England, Wales we can probably add that in 1978 there was a recommendation made it wasn't followed. Actually, the Royal Commission on Civil Liability, which talked about the fact that defense of contradictory, negligent should not be available in motor vehicle injury, where the climate was under the age of 12. That is not something that went into law. Nor is it something that appears in the case law particularly. We'll see that in some detail in just a short moment. Let's take a look at some off the examples and try to get a feel for what the relationship is between age on. Contributory negligence in the dropped I'll case from 2009 with a 10 year old child who ran out across the street from behind a bus ran into the path of the car and the driver was traveling within the prescribed speaking it but said the court too fast. Given all the circumstances on have failed to apply. Precautionary breaking on apportionment of liability for that collision was assessed at 2/3 to the driver. I'm 1/3 to the child. The court making a point that it was appropriate to judge the claimants behavior by the standards expected or a 10 year old boy on reference was made to the case of honor and Lewis Case will look at just a moment on the court took the view that at that age he could have been expected to take some precautions. Cool his own safety I am was plainly up fault. An interesting in this case reference was made to the Green Cross code. Remember that on the basics for pedestrian safety, but could not have been expected to have the same ingrained approach to safety on self preservation as you'd expect of an adult or a teenager on the idea being that the defendant should have thought about the dangers involved in running into a city street from behind the front off a park bus. In that particular case, yes, set the court, the dangers were present, but he run out taking without taking any particular care. The difficulty here, really is that the court took the view. There was no really opportunity for the driver to avoid the collision at the speed of which he was travelling. Therefore, the court took the view that a substantial degree of blame should attach to the driver. But the idea that the claimant should have some contributory negligence was particularly relevant. The claim was old enough to be aware some kind off awareness should be expected off him from the basis are weighing up blame here on causative potency. The court of the view that driving at a slower speed. I'm precautionary. Breaking would have prevented the sort of accident that could. The issue really is in this particular case. Yes, we do get child running from behind a bus of giving the driver very little opportunity to react. But the car's a lethal weapon on the car has more propensity to injure human being then the other way around, under standard of care of a driver to prevent harm is likely to be greater than that of a pedestrian I think is important in this scales of weighing up blame to take into account that greater damage causing potential. That site come in the case off owner Louis in 2005 Again, we see a child 12 years old. I think all awas about to cross the road. Interesting case, because in that particular case, the child was attempting to cross the road to school. That driver was traveling well within the speed in it. Um, bots didn't see. We came in until the last minute evidence from the driver behind the car hit a young boy was that that can't had seen the young boy standing on the curb. Um, he should have been set. The core driver aware of the school. You should have slowed down. He should have sounded his horn, and it should have seen the boys standing on the curb. Not having seen him not having seen of the child beginning clearly intending to cross the road, it was clear that they need needed to be a large proportion of liability against the driver court of you in terms of contradictory negligence that the child should have realized that that need to look out carefully for traffic from his right on a busy road on the court decided 20% was the appropriate contributory negligence finding in that particular case. It's an interesting example. I think off the idea, the courts weighing up, if you like. No, only blame blame worthiness. Let's call it also damage causing potential. Who's got the most ability? If you like to cause damage? If we take the case off Raymond on Brady from 2012 we've got a seven year old child who's now out with her family mother across the road and seven year old child legs behind mother turns and encourages the child across the road. The child is already crossing. Neither saw the clinic. The driver approach. No contributory negligence, said the court. Why? Because age with a huge factor here. The child's so young at the age of seven. Interesting argument in relation to you know whether Mother ought to be a party to these proceedings, but we know how rare that is for that particular kind of application to be made. So it's seven years old. No contradictory negligence. In that case, I don't think we should be clear enough to say that there is unset age where contribution that negligence could kicks in. But at seven none. I'm certainly we've got more Dennings authority to say that below the age of four. Absolutely not. There's around these ages where it becomes quite hard to call if you like, and decide when and in what circumstances the courts going to say. Actually, contributing negligence is not appropriate here because we've got someone who is just so young. Let's take a look at a child slightly older than the previous slide we could tightening demon case, and we've gotten an eight year old child here, um, playing on the grass verge of a road with a friend on the facts are that the child turns on runs at a medium pace into the road without looking at the little dispute about crack. Charles Not looking. We're going to retrieve something was in the road. The court took the view that an ordinary child off the claim its age could reasonably be expected to have sufficient knowledge and experience of crossing roads and to know the importance of checking for oncoming traffic off war crossing. But Children of that age were liable to become distracted by things which wouldn't just distract an adult in a similar situation. So it's interesting that called Willing Here toe look subjectively at what would you expect a child off this age in this situation to be doing again, it leaves open that issue of Are we talking about object it scenario? Or are we talking about this particular top child, the court of you? But a 20% reduction and damages for contributory negligence was appropriate to reflect this strong likelihood that the claim of would have acted differently had he not been so young on that they had been a limited opportunity for the driver to avoid the accident on I think he is surprising in this case that we've got an eight year old with the finding of contributory negligence on. It's clear that age waas a big factor in keeping that level of contribution down, I think, rather perhaps, to looking at the case and saying it's surprising their walls are finding contributory negligence. What perhaps we need to think about is the country between negligence was so low because of the child's young a, um a similar situation. And I think one of things would think about it is running into the road and giving the driver very little opportunity to avoid the collision. In the case of Burma power massive on and weeks from 2013 this one in court bail Ah, 13 year old unexpectedly ran into the path of the defendant's car. The issue really wills clearly 13 years old, off the child was old enough, said the court toe. Understand roads on. Certainly the child created the hazard by doing something entirely unexpected and something careless. The only fault off the driver, if you like, in that case, was to have been to fail to respond, as he should have done in the briefest of moments. This is always a very close call if the driver's got a very limited window of opportunity, if you like, which to take action, Um, you are you negligent in failing to react in a split second? Who certainly had case law? Never mind concerning pedestrians but case law concerning cases against, for example, motorcycles Bringing Claim gets to tractor trailer. If the lapse of judgement lapse of response is a brief moment, it's touch and go whether that's going to be considered negligent in the circumstances. The court to review that the boy was 75 life percent contributory negligence on the driver's contribution was a mere 25%. Very unusual to see that, but ah, situation where there was very, very little that the driver could have done to avoid it. And he had such a brief opportunity to do so. The reason. I think you could argue there's any liability it all on the part of the drive is again this massive mismatch between damage causing potential, Let's say which is a really important issue to flag up. We briefly discussed a case called Jackson on Murray, and I think it's important just to remind us of Scottish case right away to the outer house in Scotland. 13 year old girl originally held to be 90% contributory negligence for an accident, which left her with catastrophic injuries. Now she had stepped up from behind a school minibus into the path off the defender. Remember in Scotland now, so Defender is the name of the defendant's car. The lower court found that the court was being driven too fast on the driver had made no allowance for darkness because it was dark. All the fact that it's a school bus with a possibility of Children crossing the road in front of him and its failure to keep a proper lookout and speed meant he couldn't stopped in time, even if it's seen a in time regard was given in the Supreme Court. Arms got to the fact that she was 13 years old. I wouldn't have had the same level of judgment of self control as you'd expect of an adult. On assessing whether it's safe to cross in poor light conditions where the car had its headlights on set. The core is far from easy, even for an adult, a much more difficult for a 13 year old child. Her behavior was no on act on reckless folly. She was just negligent on the Supreme Court. Placed great stress on the actions of the defender because he was driving at excessive speed. Hadn't modified his speed to take into account. The danger presented by the minibus on was culpable to a substantial degree are 50 50 was replaced as the new. If you like a portion it it took into account, said the court. No, only the relative blame worthiness of each party, but also the causative potency off their actions on. That's such an important point to make. This is not equality of arms. Hear cars can do a lot more damage to people than the other way about the car, said the court. Was a dangerous weapon on the causative potency of the driver must be greater than that of the pedestrian. The collision wouldn't have taken place. It all had the driver's speed not been excessive. I think this case underlines the importance off evidence in relation to speed so that good evidence could be introduced about the likely speak. The driver was doing that where you've got injuries this serious cases. This Siri's the luxury of an expert will be relevant here. And so you'll be able to obtain decent evidence about the role off speed. No, only in the nature of the injuries sustained, but also in the time window. If you like for the driver to react, I will make a huge difference to the the window of time that drivers got to react if he's traveling at excessive speed. Remember, excessive speed doesn't necessarily mean exceeding the speed limit. We've seen that in previous cases that we've talked about, the court may decide, as they did interrupt our that, even keeping within the speed limit the drivers traveling at an excessive bait speed. In all circumstances, um, the highway code applies to pedestrians as well as motorists. On will include advice on how to use pavements. Doesn't could it have across the road on how to wait on so visible by wearing bright or reflective clothing? Breaches of any of these rules might be relevant, but the courts generally are going to regard as we've seen already. Vehicles is much more dangerous than two pedestrians than the other way around, so it may not mean But it will sound in any contributory negligence finding if we think about the role obviously moving on now. From Children, pedestrians to look up pedestrians who may have consumed alcohol. It's an interesting issue to decide what the role or alcohol consumption will be on the part off pedestrian Now we know in terms of drivers, I know that's not the purpose about weapon are today thinking, particularly from a pedestrian perspective. But we think about drivers on the role alcohol will play in the in terms of a driver. There's a question that the court's attitude is is quite quite strict. It's illegal. It's a criminal act to be driving a vehicle under the influence off alcohol. Consequently, the court are likely to take a very harsh line. And to be honest, they're likely to take a very harsh nine, even if the person who is over the alcohol limit is the claimant on. But perhaps the accident was caused by the defendant of Ray Shunt, for example, are crossing onto the other side of the carriageway situation. Likelihood is there would be some contributory negligence, finding even if the a seemingly blameless claimant driver is over the alcohol limit. What about pedestrians, though? How different is it for pedestrians on if we take some comments that were made in a case called delightful on the go ahead group back in 2000 and 11 on the story in that particular case, Waas, the climate walk diagonally across the road trying to flag down a bus on a very dark country road. His judgments and speeds and conditions was very, very substantially impaired by the alcohol he consumed. The defendant was reading a bus timetable is that of paying attention to the road ahead. In the seconds before the collision on he wasn't keeping a proper lookout, the court decided the appropriate finding for call neg and respected the pedestrian was 40%. The court had this to say, and I think it's quite an important point to make really the judge sedge, Judge McCall said. It's necessary to look at what the kind of did rather that than the explanation for what he did. That is, is the climate's act of walking onto the carriageway and into the path of the bus rather than the drunken state in which the act was undertaken. That is relevant. I think that's the issue. Let's take a look at transactions. Let's not look up the reason for those actions because it's not really relevant. We know what the claimant did. We know the claim of walked it diagonally across the road into into the road to black down a bus. Reason those actions were taken is not relevant. And I think the point here is that the claimant, if you like, shouldn't be punished twice for the alcohol consumption. Let's see again. Similar issue comes up in the case of Long term Khalifa on Portman Court appeal cases back in 2000 to the climate was found to be 1/3 contributory negligence when he stepped into the road in front of the car. The Klayman were drug about four pints of beer but only travel couple of paces into the road when he was struck and he walked straight out in front off the vehicle, the court found, the driver failed to keep a proper lookout, as in the case of Bruma to look at in a minute. It was a wide restricted road. Shops on one style tube on the other on drivers should be keeping a sharp look out for pedestrians in the area, particularly at the junction where the tube station Waas the driver, was doing between 25 30. All the evidence on there was no evidence that he taken any evasive action that plays breaks before the collision on the claimants. Inebriation was not given undue influence. No pun intended. It's not, said the court in the Della Middleton. This was quote was repeated in this case. It's not the fact that claimants had consumed too much alcohol, Which matters. It's what he does if he steps in front of a car traveling at 30 miles an hour when the driver's got no opportunity to avoid an accident. That's a very dangerous and unwise thing today. But the explanation of his conduct may be that he was drunk. But the fact of drunkenness does not, in my judgment, make the conduct any more or less dangerous. And it does not, in the circumstances increase the blame worthiness off it. So while the claim have created the dangerous situation when the defense vehicles said closes stepping into the road, the court imposed a high burden on drivers to reflect the fact that the car is a dangerous weapon and should be handled accordingly. Its causal causal potency is great on. The claim was found to be only 1/3 contributory negligent. In that case, I think we see the same theme. Let's say in the case off Brumer, in this particular case, Mrs Broom are stepped onto the pavement. Just got out of a vehicle, should be given the left. She stepped onto the pavement bus stop with the intention of crossing road on foot to get to an underground station. There, Waas a pelican crossing further down the road. She chose not to use it. Has she reached the centre off a four lane road? She was struck by the defendant's vehicle on the court had to determine liability. It was dark, There was light rain and the experts agreed that the street knighting provided a good standard of elimination on probably the range of speed of defendant vehicle was between 20 and 30 miles an hour, again finding of the court. In the light of the expert evidence, the defendant suggested that climate was running across the road, But the defect the experts considered it unlikely. Onda, again, this is important expert evidence, isn't it because the experts were able to look at the moment of impact on decide that she couldn't have been running or very unlikely to be running at that moment? The Law Reform Call Neck Act requires the court to consider the claimant share in responsibility from the damage. But we got the same comments made here. Potential destructive disparity between the parties must be taken into account. That is an aspect of blame worthiness on the court found that the driver was primarily to blame for the collision. 20% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, the bulk of the blown 80% on the driver, the degree of fault on the part of the drivers that the court may not have been very great and then it didn't amount to dangerous reckless driving. But it fell below the standard expected a competent, reasonable motorist in the conditions prevailing at the time, the driver should have been more alert. Joe kept lookout conditions on had it, the driver done that, it would have been likely probable that the accident would have been avoided. He should have been driving a lot of speed. Her faults. I have set out on this slide. I was interesting just to pick that up in terms of how that relates to Con Neck. She put herself with ***, the rest by crossing a four lane road and not using the crossing pedestrian crossing. She misjudged the presence and approach of the car and its speed. She wore dark clothing when crossing the hours of darkness and her upper body. She failed to wait till the person had given her left driven outside before attempting to cross, and she failed to stop center line but tried to complete her crossing. I walked into the path of the defendant's car. I think. Is it interesting list of you, like off potential calm neg bearing factors Bear in mind. The grand total was only 20% in that case. The key statement, I think from that case, really is this phrase that of it, this comment that's on the slide. The potential destructive disparity between the parties can be readily taken into account as an aspect off blame worthiness on. I think that's really, really important. What's the evidence about what the defendant date? Did the defendant take the driver, take any avoiding action, the experts will be able to get clear evidence about that. Did the private breaks did they swell? And if not, why not? Cast a beady answer, I think in terms of trying to decide the role, if you like off, um, ex terp I criminality, call it what you will in terms of liability, and it's sounding in call neck. We could do no better than look at the case of McCue. In that particular case, the court looked the behavior off. The claimant, Ah woman who was verbally and physically attacked in the car park by a married couple who were both highly intoxicated was considered to be a 25% to blame for the death off the wife off the woman who had sat on the car bonnet. The white was thrown from the woman's car. When she drove away from the scene, she suffered fatal head injuries. But having been the highly culpable, culpable protagonists, she was considered to be 75% to blame for the incident. Now, in this particular case, the behavior of the claimant on the disease have been highly culpable. No question about that. A jury had rejected the defense of necessity in respect of causing death by careless driving on have been satisfied the defendant had not been careful or prudent. The fatality had two causes set the court the deceased own actions on the defendant's decision to drive the car in the highly exceptional circumstances. In this very unusual case, the deceased have been the highly culpable protagonist, but the defendant should not have moved her car on. The defendant was 25% to play the deceased, 75% to blame. Um, yeah, I don't think it's a particularly surprising outcome in terms off call neck, Um, but I eat it. But this extraordinary circumstance, But even in extremists in extreme situations, the idea that it was acceptable if you like for the defendant to drive off with the assailant on the bombing of her car at the time is just unacceptable on, you know, interesting. I think that the idea that ex terp I illegality didn't bar the deceased disease family from bringing claim in this particular case in terms of our upset practice points in terms of where and injuries being caused not only by the defendant's negligence but also by the claimants illegal behavior. Judges may well prefer to apply the passion defense off Kolnik rather than the oil nothing event. Defense of illegality. Remember Ex Terp? I can be a complete bar on the claim, the court review. In this particular case, that was not appropriate. It's clear that on the Section 11 off the Civil Evidence Act 68 criminal conviction, it's evidence off, not a negligence. But if they have fact that the offence was committed on its open, then two defendants, isn't it to argue that their illegal behavior doesn't necessarily fall below the reasonable standard of care? But such arguments can be really difficult, I think, in RTs where the defendants being convicted of careless driving. Let's take our last a couple of things we need to look out. Ah, look at the latest decision. That's really, really important. The Court of Appeal of Made in an M. I B case. It's the M I B in Lewis. In that particular case, the court held that following the decision of luck CJ you decision of there was no doubt that the Notre Insurers Bureau were required to payout. If you like to cover um cases where the accident happened on private land. As it is quite clear, the court took the view that it was necessary and required for individuals to have insurance cover to be in place for the use of vehicles on private land. And of course, if that's true on there is the insurance, then the M I B step in our must pay and be liable to meet claim. The court added the fact that the UK government's failed the legislative compulsory insurance in respect of motor vehicles use on private land on in delegate to the M I B. The liability where the vehicle is uninsured is a breakdown in the system. The M I B is seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. That ones want to look out for on then. Last but not least on the Wellstone Woodward case is a good example off the possibility of bringing claims against our pedestrian and in this case, as you may recall, the accident arose when the disease pedestrian was parked his hamburger van. One side of the road was walking across to the other two place sign up to sell the hamburgers on. The deceased met with the accident having placed the sign, I'm walking back to the van Waas, the walking back to the van, sufficient tohave. The court decided he was using the van at the time of the accident. Yes, said the court on the motorcyclist. He was injured when the pedestrian collided with his motorcycle. Was able successfully to bring a claim against the motor insurers using the vehicle. The relevant question. Waas. What's the use off the vehicle? Was it using the vehicle by placing the sign up and then walking back to it at the time? It's not shouldn't be particularly surprising that decision alone is a think because it don't hold on. Bentley, back in 1996 came to exactly the same conclusion when we had somebody attempting to return to her vehicle. But they did run out Petrol on was returning to the vehicle at the time with a full can of petrol. On was killed when crossing the road to return to the vehicle Waas that using the big lack time Yes, said the court, absolutely waas. So in terms of what we can conclude from that are rising out off in terms when Artie insurance will be relevant contemplates remote consequences off use of a vehicle Waltham caused by doubts are arising out of his key are rising out of extends a simple cause and effect. So the result is its lesson. Media, but it still carries a sense of consequence. Are rising out or doesn't mean proximate cause or ineffective cools, but not necessarily an immediate course. That's too narrow test. So even if you're not in the vehicle but returning to it, you may be it may be your accident are rising out of the use of a vehicle on the term of rising out. Off still excludes the use of a vehicle Cassilly, concomitant but not causally connected with the acting question. Putting the sign up on returning to it is sufficient. It's a simple as that, um, but we can just, very lastly mention the case off Extended war boys arising out off the use of a vehicle are claimants in this case. Work, if you recall, were victims of sexual offenses committed by taxi driver First defendant are the claimant argued the insurer was liable for the injuries the girls it'll sustained at the hands of the driver. The court held that the injuries resulted not from the taxi drivers use of the cab, but rather is part of a deliberate criminal enterprise on they didn't arise out of the use of a vehicle on a road or public place in terms of the Road Traffic Act section 1543 a no sufficient causal link between the injuries and the use of the vehicle. The injuries were caused by conduct extraneous to criminal driving. Because the girls were poisoned and then assaulted in the vehicle is interesting. There are limits to that test, but if there's an RT a insurer possibility off course in terms of recovery of money, that's always a very tempting prospect, Very fast moving area. We need to keep an eye on what's going on with the Supreme Court developments in this case in this area, which which will do thank you for listening. That's the end of the webinar
Webinar
Slides
1089 Users
57 Courses
23 Reviews