Albert v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [1972] AC 301; [1971] 3 WLR 291; [1971] 2 All ER 1345
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1960 – INSURANCE – THIRD PARTY
Facts
Quirk (Q) regularly gave his co-workers lifts to and from work in his car over a period of more than eight years, and received payments for this. On one of these trips, there was an accident in which one of his passengers and co-workers was killed. Mrs Albert (A), the deceased passenger’s widow, brought a claim against the driver under the Fatal Accidents Acts 1846–1908 and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, and was awarded damages. When Q failed to meet the order, A brought an action against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) under its 1946 agreement with the Minister of Transport. The action was brought against MIB on the basis that Q was acting on a hire/reward basis when giving lifts for remuneration for the purposes of section 203(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1960.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
At first instance, the court held that carriage for hire or reward under section 203(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 required an enforceable contract, and found that none had been intended. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The House of Lords had to decide whether Q’s regular paid lifts nevertheless constituted carriage for hire or reward, bringing the unsatisfied judgment within the MIB’s agreement.
Decision/Outcome
In deciding the appeal, the court considered Coward v Motor Insurers Bureau [1963] 1 QB 259 and Connell v Motor Insurers Bureau [1969] 2 QB 494.
The appeal was allowed. The majority held that Q’s systematic carriage of passengers for expected payment went beyond mere social kindness and amounted to a business activity. The vehicle was therefore one in which passengers were carried for hire or reward under section 203(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1960. An enforceable contract between the parties was unnecessary. Viscount Dilhorne and Lord Cross also allowed the appeal, but differed from the majority on the construction of the statutory words.
