0370 270 6000

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

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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