Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Apr 24, 2026 8:12 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Duty of care minicabs
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
(Rogers v Night Riders
(CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
c.1983

[1983] R.T.R. 324

Summary

Subject: Negligence

Minicab firm; duty to provide drivers and vehicles fit for the purpose; whether delegable


A minicab firm who undertook to the general public to convey a passenger to her destination owed that passenger a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicle provided for her is properly maintained and reasonably fit for that purpose. D were firms which operated a minicab service: they hired radios to car-hire drivers, and ensured that drivers on their list held a licence for two years and had their own private hire insurance. The drivers owned, maintained, and controlled their own vehicles.

P asked for a minicab from D and a vehicle arrived. During the journey the door on P's side flew open, hit a stationary vehicle, and rebounded hitting P. She sued them for damages in negligence. The driver of the vehicle could not be traced and the action against him was discontinued. The judge found that the driver had been negligent in failing properly to maintain his vehicle, but that the relation between him and D was that of independent contractor and principal, and so D were not liable for his negligent acts. He dismissed the action.

Summary: Held, allowing P's appeal, that on the facts D had held themselves out to the general public as a car-hire firm undertaking to provide a vehicle to convey P to her destination. They could foresee that P might be injured if the vehicle provided for her was defective and accordingly owed her a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicle was properly maintained and reasonably fit for that purpose. That duty could not be delegated to a third party such as the driver, whether an employee or an independent contractor, so as to evade responsibility for breach of that duty.

Citations to the Case

Considered by
Aiken v Stewart Wrightson Members Agency Ltd, [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1281; [1995] 3 All E.R. 449; [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 618; Times, March 8, 1995 (QBD (Comm))


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 397 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group