Road Traffic Act: High Court Considers Meaning Of ‘Arising Out Of The Use Of A Vehicle On A Road'

Carroll v Taylor (1), Doyle (2), Emms Taxis Limited (3), QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited (4) [2020] EWHC 153 (QB)

The High Court has recently considered the application of s145(3) of the Road Traffic Act ("RTA"), specifically how the words 'arising out of the use of a vehicle on a road' should be interpreted in relation to a personal injury claim.

The Claimant was abandoned by a taxi driver who had stolen his debit card and PIN. The Claimant attempted to walk home, but fell from a motorway bridge and sustained catastrophic injuries. He pursued the insurer of the taxi under the European Communities (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2002. The High Court held the Claimant's injuries were not caused by and did not arise out of the use of the taxi pursuant to s145(3), and the claim against the insurer was dismissed.

This decision provides welcome clarity on those circumstances in which a causal link will be established between the 'use' of a vehicle and injuries sustained by a claimant.

Background

The Claimant had been drinking with friends in Liverpool, and shortly after 3.00am hailed a black cab to take him home. The driver did not take him home; instead he stole the Claimant's debit card and PIN, and left the Claimant on his own three miles short of his destination.

The Claimant continued on foot and during his journey fell off a motorway bridge onto a car park below sustaining catastrophic head injuries.

The Claimant issued a claim against (as defendants):

the taxi driver;

the owner of the taxi;

the taxi company operated by the owner;

the insurer of the taxi, the policy being in the name of the Second Defendant.

The Claimant alleged a direct right of action against the insurer in respect of a claim in negligence under the European Communities (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2002. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim stated that "for the purposes of section 145 of [the RTA], the [bodily injury] arose out of the use of the taxi on the road".

The insurer submitted in the Defence that the Claimant did not have any claim against it under the RTA or under the terms of the policy of insurance.

The question of whether the insurance policy should respond was handled at a preliminary trial. The issues were simplified by agreement into two questions, namely:

Did the Claimant's injuries arise out of the use of the taxi on a road or other public place within the meaning section 145(3)(a) of the RTA?

Given the basis for the Court's finding on the...