0370 270 6000

Akers and Others v Thorne and the Motor Insurers Bureau, Guildford County Court

15 May 2002
The issues

Seatbelt – drunk driver – Claimant’s knowledge of driver’s state and of driver’s lack of insurance – MIB’s duty to meet the award.

The facts

The First Defendant was the driver of a car which had a serious accident killing the Claimant. He was uninsured. He had been drinking. The MIB argued that the death had been caused or contributed to by the deceased’s own actions in that he knew or ought to have known that the First Defendant had been drinking and was unable to drive safely and secondly, that he had not worn a seatbelt and thirdly, that he knew or ought to have known that the driver was uninsured. If the last point was proved, the MIB argued that it had no responsibility to meet any award of damages.

The decision

1. The First Defendant had drunk and smoked Cannabis in the presence of the deceased, who therefore ought to have known of the risk of getting in the car. A reduction of 20% in the award would be made on this ground.

2. The deceased had not worn a seatbelt. A further deduction of 25% would be made on this ground – the total deduction being 45%.

3. On the balance of probabilities, the MIB had failed to show that the deceased had known that the Defendant was uninsured.

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