A motorist was involved in an accident when unknowingly he was suffering from a stroke and was unaware of his unfitness to drive. The court considered several criminal cases about automatism before holding: ‘I am satisfied that in a civil case a similar approach should be adopted. The driver will be able to escape liability if his actions at the relevant time were wholly beyond his control. The most obvious case is sudden unconsciousness. But if he retained some control, albeit imperfect control, and if his driving, judged objectively, was below the required standard, he remains liable.’
Judges:
Neill LJ
Citations:
[1980] 1 WLR 823
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Doubted – Mansfield and Another v Weetabix Limited and Another CA 26-Mar-1997
A lorry belonging to the defendants failed to take a bend crashing into the plaintiffs’ shop causing extensive damage. Mr Terence Tarleton, the driver later died, as did Mrs Mansfield. Mr Tarleton did not know he had malignant insulinoma, resulting . .
Approved – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1992) CACD 21-Jun-1993
The defendant lorry driver collided with cars parked on the hard shoulder of the motorway, killing two people. He pleaded in defence a non-insane automatism induced by the experience of ‘repetitive visual stimulus experienced on long journeys on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Road Traffic
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190019
