The wife owned the car. The husband who had drunk to excess drove the car with her permission, causing severe injury to the passengers and his own death. She was not present.
Held: From considerations of policy, as the owner of the family car was insured, she should bear the loss. Lord Denning MR said: ‘The reason behind this principle is at bottom the principle which lies behind all vicarious liability. It is to put the responsibility onto the person who ought in justice to bear it. Now the owner or hirer of the vehicle is in most cases the person who ought to bear the responsibility.’
Megaw LJ said: ‘[I]f one were to bring in questions of insurance, one might speculate . . [b]ut this court may not, in accordance with its judicial duty, indulge in such speculation. [Counsel] was doing no more than carrying out his duty to the court in refraining from discussing the insurance position.’
Lord Denning MR, Megaw LJ
[1971] 2 QB 245
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council CA 1972
The court considered the liability in negligence of a Council whose inspector had approved a building which later proved defective.
Held: The Council had control of the work and with such control came a responsibility to take care in . .
Appeal from – Launchbury v Morgans HL 9-May-1972
The owner of a car appealed against a ruling that she was responsible for injury suffered by the three respondents who had been passengers in the car when it crashed. The owner had not been with them. The care was driven by her husband with her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Vicarious Liability
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.186895