House of Lords
| Date | 01 November 1984 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838404800403 |
| Published date | 01 November 1984 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
HOUSE
OF
LORDS
LIABILITY FOR CRIMINAL USE OF
CAR
Gardner v. Moore
That
the consequences of crime
extend
well beyond those seen in
the criminal courts is amply
demonstrated
by
the
case
of
Gardner v.
Moore
[1984]2
W.L.R. 714; 1All
E.R.
1100.
There,
the defendant
had had an altercation with the plaintiff and had deliberately driven
his car on to the pavement where the plaintiff was walking
and
had
deliberately run him down.
For
this, he was charged with wounding
with
intent
to cause grievous bodily
harm
and was convicted and
sent to prison for three years.
The
victim sued for damages for his
injuries and was awarded£15,000. It transpired
that
the wrongdoer
had no relevant policy of insurance
under
Part
VI of the
Road
Traffic Act 1972 and, for
that
reason, the court allowed the Motor
Insurers'
Bureau
to be
added
as a second
defendant
and
granted a
declaration
that
the
Bureau
was
bound
to indemnify the victim in
respect of any judgment he
obtained.
Although the
Bureau
denied
liability, it conceded
that
the court was
bound
by the decision in
Hardy v. Motor Insurers' Bureau [1964] 2Q.B. 745 to hold to the
contrary;
but
the
Bureau
was
granted
acertificate of leave to appeal
direct to the House of Lords,
under
the leap-frogging provision, to
test the correctness of the decision in
that
case.
Where damage
or
injury arises from the criminal act of a driver
who is uninsured
or
untraceable,
Part
VI of the
Act
of 1972
attempts to protect the innocent third party from the possibility of
his failure to obtain compensation. It does so on the basis of
agreements between the
Bureau
and
the
Secretary of State
under
which
the
Bureau
is to satisfy any unsatisfied judgments in respect
of any
"relevant
liability", which means aliability in respect of
which a policy of insurance insures aperson in such a way as to
comply with
Part
VI of
the
Act.
For
the
Bureau,
it was argued
that
the victim's judgment was
not
in respect of any
"relevant
liability",
in
that
the well-known doctrine of public policy
that
a
man
may
not
profit from the consequences
of
his own wrongdoing
meant
that
the
372
To continue reading
Request your trial