Defences for Drunken Drivers: Public Policy on the Roads and in the Air
| Date | 01 September 1991 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1991.tb02668.x |
| Published date | 01 September 1991 |
September
199
1
I
Dqfctices
jbr
Llrittrkcti
Drivers
fears of ‘limitless liability’ are exaggerated given the difficulties
of
establishing a
claim for negligent misstatement
in
such circumstances.31 Accountants (and other
financial advisers) receive large fees for their work in connection with takeovers
and,
it
is said, they must in consequence be prepared to accept
full
responsibility
for their errors.32 The settlement in
Morgan
Crucible
has merely deferred further
consideration of the issue of liability
-
other cases are already
in
~reparation~~
and, for the accountancy profession, relief is
likely
to be short-lived.
Defences for Drunken Drivers: Public Policy
on the
Roads and in
the
Air
Kevin Williams
*
To
the
familiar exhortation not
to
drink and drive has been added the further caveat
not to ride with those who do. In two separate decisions, which will delight liability
insurers, the Court of Appeal has emphatically rejected claims by injured passengers,
essentially because they were complicit in the defendant drivers’ alcohol-induced
recklessness.
In
Pitts
v
Hunr,’
two teenagers who had consumed perhaps four pints of beer
apiece at a disco rode home on a motorcycle, the passenger knowing that the driver
had neither licence nor insurance. The trial judge found that the motorcycle had
been driven in a manner deliberately calculated to frighten other road uscrs and
that the passenger had aided and abetted the driver to weave from one side
of
the
road to the other. In
a
head-on crash the pillion rider was seriously hurt and
the
driver killed.
Morris
v
Murray2
concerned two friends who, following an after-
noon’s heavy drinking, went for a joyride in the defendant’s light aircraft. The plane
crashed shortly after take-off because
of
the pilot’s inebriated incompetence. Once
again, the injured passenger sued the defendant’s estate.) Both plaintiffs were
effectively met with all-or-nothing, policy based defences
-
ex
rurpi
cuusu
nun
orirur
actio
in
Pitrs,
volenri
non
jt
injuria
in
Morris.
Contributory negligence featurcd
only
as
a
fallback position.
BI
32
See the comments of Taylor LJ in
Ccrporo
in
the Court
of
Appeal 119891
2
WLR
316
at
p
343.
In
Morgan
Cnicible
at p
633
Hoffman
J
referred
to
(but did not approve) the still more ruthless arguiiierlt
that since takeovers, by promoting efficient management, arc good
for
thc economy, and since they
can only proceed where therc is accurate financial information, ‘it may be necessary
to
batikrupt
a
few accountants
to
encourage the othcrs.’
The negligence claim by Fcrranti against Pcat Marwick McLintock, thc former iiuditors
of
International
Signal and Control,
is
expcctcd
to
be thc largest cvcr yet ~nadc agaiiist
a
UK
firm
of auditors, with
a
figure of
f400
million being quoted
-
scc
Accoio~mncy.
March 1990, p
21
(‘Coninieiitary’ by Anilrew
Darnill).
33
*Principal Lecturer, Sheffieltl City Polytechnic.
I
2
3
[
19901
3
WLR
542.
119901
3
All
ER
801.
Neither defendant was insured. In
Pirrs,
despite lcavc having been givcn.
the
opportunity
to
go
to
the House
of
Lords was not taken, apparently because counscl advised that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau
(the ‘rcal’ defendant) could Icgitiniutcly rcfuse
to
satisfy any award against the driver bccaube passctigcrs
who ridc in vehicles which they know
to
be uninsured are outside the MIB scheme by virtue of clause
6.
Qririere,
howcvcr, whcthcr this
is
correct. Leave
to
appcal was refused
in
Morris.
745
To continue reading
Request your trial