Q&As

An agent for a local authority (social worker for borough council) transports a child and their guardian in accordance with the local authority's instructions. A road traffic accident (RTA) occurs and the child and guardian both suffer injuries. In such a circumstance, would the matter proceed against the local authority or the individual driver, and would the local authority or the individual's RTA insurers have any exceptions to rely upon?

read titleRead full title
Published on LexisPSL on 19/09/2018

The following PI & Clinical Negligence Q&A provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • An agent for a local authority (social worker for borough council) transports a child and their guardian in accordance with the local authority's instructions. A road traffic accident (RTA) occurs and the child and guardian both suffer injuries. In such a circumstance, would the matter proceed against the local authority or the individual driver, and would the local authority or the individual's RTA insurers have any exceptions to rely upon?
  • Driver liability
  • Vicarious liability
  • Motor insurance
  • Case law

Driver liability

A road user owes a duty to take reasonable care to avoid doing or omitting to do anything that they can reasonably foresee would cause injury to others. For further guidance on the duty of care owed by road users, see: Road traffic accident claims—overview and Practice Note: Duties of the road user.

Vicarious liability

In certain situations an employer, may be held to be vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver. If the driver was not an employee of the defendant, a potential claimant will need to consider the relationship between the driver and the defendant and the connection between that relationship and the driver’s negligence.

The case of Fletcher v Chancery Lane Supplies demonstrates that the approach taken in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc is applicable to road traffic accidents. The Court of Appeal, applying the two-stage test set out in Mohamud did not find that the defendant was liable for the negligence of their employee who stepped into a cyclist’s path. It is interesting

Popular documents