Smith v Skanska Construction Services Ltd
The Defendant is not vicariously liable because Mr McIntyre did not give consent for Paul Andrew to drive the Toyota 2L; Claimant acted without authority and cannot rely on ostensible authority or ratification. Insurance claims do not amount to ratification or estoppel. Claimant’s evidence is unreliable due to retrograde amnesia and psychological overlay.
- Parties
- Claimant: Peter Smith; Defendant: Skanska Construction Services Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 29 July 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury/vicarious Liability / Judgment After Retrial
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Vicarious Liability, Agency, Ratification, Contributory Negligence, Approbation and Reprobation, Applicable Law, Insurance Claims
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Smith
Claimant
Skanska Construction Services Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/vicarious Liability / Judgment After Retrial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Defendant is vicariously liable for the negligent driving of Paul Andrew
- 2 Whether Mr McIntyre gave consent for Paul Andrew to drive the Toyota 2L
- 3 Whether the Defendant ratified the tort or is estopped from denying authority
Ratio Decidendi
The Defendant is not vicariously liable because Mr McIntyre did not give consent for Paul Andrew to drive the Toyota 2L; Claimant acted without authority and cannot rely on ostensible authority or ratification. Insurance claims do not amount to ratification or estoppel. Claimant’s evidence is unreliable due to retrograde amnesia and psychological overlay.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment