Taxi Driver Online

This is a case that concerns every driver.

For the sake of insurance claims and contributary negligence there may be a case agaisnt you for contributary negligence if "you know the passenger you are driving" and you are not wearing your seat belt. So be vigilent if you have an accident.
........................................................................

Jones (Kenneth) v Morgan (Jonathan)
(HC) High Court
10 May 1994

Where Reported
Summary
Cases Cited
Legislation Cited

[1994] C.L.Y. 3344

Subject: Negligence

Contributory negligence; road traffic accident; taxi driver injured when not wearing seat belt; whether taxi driver negligent; whether deduction to be made from damages

Abstract: J, a taxi driver, was involved in a collision whilst carrying a female fare-paying passenger. He was not wearing his seat belt and suffered serious injury to his hip. Liability for the collision was admitted by M, who alleged that if J had been wearing his seat belt his injuries would have been minor and reversible, which J admitted. However, J contended that he was not negligent because taxi drivers are exempt from wearing seat belts when carrying fare-paying passengers; his employer had advised him not to wear his seat belt when carrying passengers late at night; and from his own experience and the experience of other taxi drivers, it was easier to evade attack from passengers if the seat belt was left off.

Summary: Held, that the first contention was a relevant and not insignificant point which could be taken into account under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s. 1, and the second and third points had been established on the evidence. It would be unreasonable to have an invariable policy not to wear seat belts as many passengers, e.g. regular customers and the elderly, would not pose a threat, however, J did not know the woman he was carrying and even women could pose a threat. The time of day would also be relevant and in many cases the taxi driver would not be able to assess the risk. The practice of not wearing a seat belt when the risk exists is not unreasonable and risk existed in the present case where an unknown barmaid had been picked up at midnight. J was not to blame and there would be no deduction from his damages (Froom v Butcher [1976] Q.B. 286, Pace v Cully 1992 S.L.T. 1073 considered).

Judge: Dyson, J.

Cases Cited

Froom v Butcher, [1976] Q.B. 286; [1975] 3 W.L.R. 379; [1975] 3 All E.R. 520; [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 478; [1975] R.T.R. 518; (1975) 119 S.J. 613 (CA (Civ Div))
Pace v Cully, 1992 S.L.T. 1073 (OH)

Legislation Cited

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s. 1
Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993 176)

Interesting.

_________________
IDFIMH