0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Jebson v Ministry of Defence

26 June 2000
The issues

Drunkenness: to what extent other parties have a responsibility towards a person they know or should know is drunk

The facts

The Claimant was a soldier. He was being carried in a military lorry with other soldiers. They were drunk. He fell from the lorry whilst it was moving and suffered serious injuries. At first instance the Claimant failed on the basis that he was the author of his own misfortune. The Claimant appealed. The soldiers were known by the Defendants to be going out on a spree and the Defendants had provided transport to return them to barracks.

The decision

i) The Defendant owed a duty of care to the passengers on the lorry to take all due care as far as possible and to carry them safely.

ii) It was in issue as to whether that duty extended to an obligation to supervise drunken soldiers and whether the Claimant’s accident was foreseeable.

iii) It was not enough for it to be reasonably foreseeable for the Claimant to succeed. It was also necessary to show that it was fair, just and reasonable for a duty of care to be imposed.

iv) Ordinarily an adult was not entitled to rely on his own drunkenness as giving rise to a duty on others to exercise special care.

v) That rule was not invariable. It was not proper to apply it in circumstances where an obligation of care was assumed or impliedly undertaken in respect of a person likely to be drunk.

vi) In these circumstances, the Defendant should have realised that the soldiers would be returning “in high spirits and in an inebriated state”. There was therefore a particular duty to ensure that transport was reasonably safe to avoid the possibility of rowdy behaviour – it was not. The size of the gap above the tailgate and the fact that the driver could not see what was happening behind made it clear that the “transport package” was plainly deficient. It was foreseeable that injury would occur and that that injury might include the danger that someone would fall from the vehicle.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up