The court considered whether the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal road accident in Thailand was driving within the authority of the UK employers. The driver was not an employee but had authority to use company vehicles for tasks for the company. He had previously been banned from driving such vehicles but that ban had been relaxed subject to conditions preventing him driving alone or at night. The accident occurred when the driver took people home from the christmas staff party.
Held: The Thai civil code required two elements for vicarious liability each of which was satisfied. In this respect the Thai law did not differ from UK law. It had not been shown that the driver had taken the car with the authority of the company, and it was not vicariously liable. Nor could the company be said to have given retrospective authority by the way it had handled its insurance claim, or to have ratified the tort. The claimant was solely responsible for authorising the driver to take the car and the defendant was not liable.
 EWHC 1776 (QB)
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995
England and Wales
Cited – Crouch v Hooper 1852
Sir John Romilly MR discussed the possibility of a witness being honest but mistaken: ‘it must always be borne in mind . . how extremely prone persons are to believe what they wish. And where persons are once persuaded of the truth of such a fact, . .
Cited – Banque des Marchands de Moscou (Koupetschesky) v Kindersley CA 1951
Sir Raymond Evershed MR discussed the need to keep the doctrine against approbation and reprobation within limits. . .
Cited – Express Newspapers v News (UK) plc 1990
If summary judgment is given to one party on his claim, it must also be given on a counterclaim made on the same basis by the defendant. The principle that a party to litigation cannot ‘approbate and reprobate’ (or ‘blow hot and cold’) can curtail a . .
Cited – Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd HL 25-Jun-1953
Plaintiff to take own responsibility for damage
The question was whether the fault of the deceased’s fellow workman, they both having disobeyed their foreman’s instructions, was to be regarded as having contributed to the accident.
Held: A plaintiff must ‘share in the responsibility for the . .
Cited – First National Bank Plc v Walker and Another CA 23-Nov-2000
A claim that a bank’s charge should be set aside as having been obtained by the undue influence of a co-mortgagee was parasitic upon a claim as between the co-mortgagors in family proceedings. The wife sought as against the bank to challenge the . .
Cited – PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd (BT Property Ltd and another, Part 20 defendants) ChD 8-Aug-2003
The parties, head lessor and sub-lessess, had assumed that following Brown -v- Wilson the sub-lease would continue upon the determination of the head lease, and had overlooked Pennell which overruled Brown v Wilson. However the lease made express . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic, Vicarious Liability
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.271313