Breslin v. Corcoran [2003] IESC 23 (27 March 2003)

Breslin v. Corcoran [2003] IESC 23 (27 March 2003)

The owner of a car who leaves it unattended with keys in the ignition is not liable in negligence for injuries caused by a thief's negligent driving unless it was a reasonable probability that the car, if stolen, would be driven so carelessly as to cause injury. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest such a probability, so the chain of causation was broken by the thief's independent act.

Citation
[2003] IESC 23
Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick Breslin; Defendant/respondent: Noel Corcoran; Defendant/appellant: Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Novus Actus Interveniens, Motor Vehicle Liability
Tort Law Negligence Duty of Care Causation Novus Actus Interveniens Motor Vehicle Liability

Case Brief

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Breslin

Plaintiff

Noel Corcoran

Defendant/respondent

Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a car owner is liable in negligence for injuries caused by a thief who stole the owner's unattended car with keys in the ignition and drove it negligently.
  2. 2 Whether the act of the thief constitutes a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation.

Ratio Decidendi

The owner of a car who leaves it unattended with keys in the ignition is not liable in negligence for injuries caused by a thief's negligent driving unless it was a reasonable probability that the car, if stolen, would be driven so carelessly as to cause injury. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest such a probability, so the chain of causation was broken by the thief's independent act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed