Launchbury v Morgans

[SECOND FINAL]

Die Martis, 9° Maii 1972

Parliamentary Archives,
HL/PO/JU/4/3/1235

HOUSE OF LORDS

MORGANS (WIDOW)

v.
LAUNCHBURY (A.P.) AND OTHERS (A.P.)

Lord Wilberforce
Viscount Dilhorne
Lord Pearson
Lord Cross of Chelsea
Lord Salmon

Lord Wilberforce
my lords,

This appeal arises out of a motor car accident in which the three
Respondents were injured. They were passengers in a Jaguar saloon which
was registered in the name of the Appellant; she was not using the car at the
time. The other persons in it were the Appellant's husband and a friend of
his, Mr. D. J. Cawfield, who was driving: both were killed. It is not disputed
that the accident was caused by the negligence of Mr. Cawfield. At first
instance, the Appellant was sued both in her personal capacity and as
administratrix for her deceased husband: judgment was given against her in
both capacities on the ground that both she personally and her husband, were
vicariously liable for Mr. Cawfield's negligence. It is only in her personal
capacity that she brings the present appeal and the question involved is there-
fore whether as owner of the car, and in the circumstances in which it came
to be used and driven, she can be held vicariously liable for the negligence
of the driver.

Some further facts require to be stated. Before their marriage the Appellant
and her husband each had their own car, but after they had been married
about a year they decided to sell one, and the one sold was the husband's.
The Jaguar was, in the Appellant's words, regarded as " our car ". It was
freely used by either husband and wife; the husband normally used it every
day to drive to and from his place of work seven miles from his home.

On the day of the accident, the husband had driven in the car to work.
In the evening he telephoned to the Appellant to say that he would not be
returning home for his evening meal and that he was going out with friends.
He visited a number of public houses and had drinks. At some stage he
realised that he was unable to drive safely and he asked Mr. Cawfield to
drive and gave Mr. Cawfield the keys. Mr. Cawfield drove the husband to
other public houses. After the last one had been visited Mr. Cawfield offered
the three Respondents, one of whom was a friend of his, a lift in the car ; and,
soon after, the husband got into the back of the car and fell asleep: he was
certainly and heavily intoxicated. Mr. Cawfield then drove off, not in the
direction of the husband's home, but in the opposite direction, suggesting a
meal before he finally drove the passengers home. Soon after, with Mr.
Cawfield driving at 90 m.p.h., the car collided with an omnibus.

There was some important evidence as to the circumstances in which the
Appellant's husband may have asked Mr. Cawfield to drive. According to
the Appellant's…