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?

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

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