Buchanan allowed his brother to use a vehicle without restriction as to the purpose of use; Buchanan did not actually know (although he had reason to think) that the vehicle the subject of the permission was being used for private purposes. The House was asked whether he had ’caused’ its user to drive it.
Held: He had. Lord Wright said: ‘To ’cause’ the user involves some express or positive mandate from the person ‘causing’ to the other person, or some authority from the former to the latter, arising in the circumstances of the case.’
Lord Wright said: ‘intention to commit a breach of statute need not be, shown. The breach in fact is enough.’
Lord Wright
[1940] 2 All ER 179
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Monk v Warbey CA 1935
The court took a strict view of a vehicle owner’s potential liability to injured third parties.
Held: A person who suffered injury by reason of a breach of s35 could maintain an action in damages for that breach: ‘The Road Traffic Act, 1930, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.653885