Smith v Skanska Construction Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 1776 (QB) (29 July 2008)

Smith v Skanska Construction Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 1776 (QB) (29 July 2008)

The Defendant did not give express or implied consent for Paul Andrew to drive the Toyota 2L that night; Paul was not acting as Defendant's agent. Therefore, Defendant is not vicariously liable for Paul's negligent driving. Claimant failed to prove Defendant's liability. Contributory negligence not determined as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1776
Parties
Claimant: Peter Smith; Defendant: Skanska Construction Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/vicarious Liability / High Court Retrial Following Court of Appeal Order
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Employer's Liability, Consent to Drive, Insurance Coverage, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Employment Law Insurance Law Vicarious Liability Employer's Liability Consent to Drive Insurance Coverage Contributory Negligence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Smith

Claimant

Skanska Construction Services Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/vicarious Liability / High Court Retrial Following Court of Appeal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was Paul Andrew driving as the Defendant's agent?
  2. 2 Did the Defendant give consent for Paul Andrew to drive the Toyota 2L?
  3. 3 Is the Defendant vicariously liable for Paul's negligent driving?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant did not give express or implied consent for Paul Andrew to drive the Toyota 2L that night; Paul was not acting as Defendant's agent. Therefore, Defendant is not vicariously liable for Paul's negligent driving. Claimant failed to prove Defendant's liability. Contributory negligence not determined as primary liability not established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to damages against Defendant
  • Claimant's claim for vicarious liability rejected