The parties had been involved in a road accident. The insurer for the liable party offered a car for use whilst the claimant’s car was being repaired. The claimants had rejected that offer, and now appealed against a refusal to award them the cost of alternate car hire.
Held: The appeals succeeded. For such an offer to have effect, it must contain all such information as will be relevant for the claimants and their advisers or representatives to make a reasonable response. In this case, the letter did not include the cost to the defendant’s insurers of hiring the car. Even if the claimants had acted unreasonably, they should at least recover the actual reasonable cost of hire.
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Jacob
[2009] EWCA Civ 580, Times 15-Jul-2009, [2009] RTR 24, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 496, [2009] PIQR P21, [2009] WLR (D) 200
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Evans v TNT Logistics Ltd 2007
(Pontypridd County Court) The court considered the treatment of rejection of the offer of a car to the claimant for use whilst his own car was being repaired after an accident.
Held: Although the offer of the defendant’s insurers could be . .
Cited – Dimond v Lovell HL 12-May-2000
A claimant sought as part of her damages for the cost of hiring a care whilst her own was off the road after an accident caused by the defendant. She agreed with a hire company to hire a car, but payment was delayed until the claim was settled.
Cited – Darbishire v Warran CA 30-Jul-1963
Damages were claimed for a damaged car.
Held: Pearson LJ said: ‘It is vital, for the purpose of assessing damages fairly between the plaintiff and the defendant, to consider whether the plaintiff’s course of action was economic or uneconomic, . .
Applied – Strutt v Whitnell CA 1975
The house sale contract provided for vacant possession on completion, notwithstanding that it was in fact occupied by a protected tenant who in the event declined to leave. The vendor offered to accept a reconveyance of the house, but that offer was . .
Cited – Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet; The Solholt CA 1983
The seller had failed to deliver the vessel he had sold by the delivery date. The buyer cancelled and requested return of his deposit, also claiming damages because the vessel was worth $500,000 more on the delivery date than she had been when the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Road Traffic
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.347012
