Car Repair Negligence Claim

Exel Logistics Ltd V (1) Wayne Curran (2) Land Rover (Uk) Ltd (3) Paul Stimpson (2004)

[2004] EWCA Civ 1249

CA (Civ Div) (Auld LJ, Sedley LJ, Keene LJ) 30/9/2004

Negligence - Personal Injury

Road Traffic Accidents : Apportionment : Causation : Tyre Pressure : Underinflated Tyres : Reg.27 Road Vehicles (Construction And Use) Regulations 1986

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 reg.27, which created an absolute duty to ensure that the pressure of the tyres was sufficient for the vehicle to be safe, did not mean that a driver who failed to check the tyre pressures before he set off was necessarily liable in negligence for an accident caused by under-inflated tyres.

The appellant company (E) appealed against the decision that its negligence in assembling a wheel and tyre was a contributory cause of a car accident and that it was two-thirds to blame for the accident. The third respondent (S) was a passenger in a motor vehicle which crashed on the motorway injuring S and others. The vehicle was being driven by the first respondent (C) and had been provided to C by his employer, the second respondent (L). The judge found that under-inflation of the vehicle's rear tyres, for which L accepted responsibility, was a cause of the accident. The judge found that C was not negligent. E had assembled the front offside wheel and tyre which was found after the accident to have a split inner tube.

E accepted that the tyre had been fitted negligently but denied that such negligence had been causative, either because the tube had split after the accident or because the deflation of that tyre did not contribute to the accident. The judge held that the split and partial deflation of the front offside tyre tube occurred before the accident and was a cause of it. He held that E was more blameworthy than L and apportioned liability between them two-thirds to one-third respectively.

E submitted that the judge (1) should have found C guilty of negligence; (2) was wrong to have found that the deflating front tyre contributed to the accident; (3) was wrong to apportion more than 50 per cent of the blame for the accident to E whose share should have been only one-third or less.

HELD: (1) The judge was right to find that C's failure to check the tyre pressures before he set off was not negligent because C was entitled to rely on the apparent good condition of the vehicle, and it was not reasonably foreseeable that the tyres of the company vehicle provided by L would be dangerously under-inflated.

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 reg.27, which created an absolute duty to ensure that the pressure of the tyres was sufficient for a vehicle to be safe, could be of no guidance as to the standard of care applicable in the circumstances, Franklin v Gramaphone Co Ltd [1948] 1 KB 542 distinguished, and did not confer any private right of action, Phillips v Britannia Hygienic Laundry Co Ltd [1923] 2 KB 832 applied. There had been nothing to put C on notice that the vehicle was not handling properly.

(2) On the evidence the judge was entitled to find on the balance of probabilities that the precipitating cause of the accident was the development of substantial under-inflation of the front offside tyre which would have caused sudden instability in combination with the under-inflated rear tyres.

(3) E should not be regarded as twice as much to blame for the accident and its consequences as L. L's failure to maintain the rear tyres at the proper pressure and E's negligent assembly of the front tyre in a condition likely to lead to sudden failure were of equally causative potency and equally blameworthy. Therefore liability should be apportioned equally between E and L.

Appeal allowed in part.

Counsel:
For the appellant: Christopher Sharp QC
For the first and second respondents: Christopher Kennedy
For the third respondent: Allan Dooley

Solicitors:
For the appellant: Lyons Davidson
For the first and second respondents: Bott & Co
For the third respondent: Blakemores