AXN & Ors v Worboys & Ors

For compulsory motor insurance, “arising out of” the use of a vehicle requires a causal or consequential relationship between the vehicle’s use and the injury. The relationship may be less direct than that required by “caused by”, but it must remain relatively strong. A vehicle’s mere presence or location is insufficient.

The relevant inquiry concerns the vehicle’s use at the time of injury and all material circumstances, including the driver’s purpose. Deliberate criminal conduct does not automatically fall outside compulsory cover where the injury is caused by the use of the vehicle. However, liability for extraneous criminal acts such as poisoning or sexual assault is not required to be insured merely because those acts occur in a vehicle.

For policy limitations, the essential character or primary purpose of the journey is assessed when the incident occurs, principally by reference to the driver’s intention.

Ten victims of John Worboys brought claims against him and the insurers of his taxi. The claims alleged poisoning, sexual assault, false imprisonment and related injuries. The preliminary issues were determined on agreed assumed facts, including that Worboys had deliberately targeted passengers, drugged them and committed or attempted sexual assaults in his taxi.

The claimants sought to establish that the insurers were liable under sections 145 and 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The court had to decide whether the injuries arose out of the use of the taxi on a road, whether the deliberate acts were required to be covered, whether they fell within the policy’s permitted uses, and whether the insurers had to satisfy any judgment.

1. Outcome. All four preliminary issues were answered “No”. The insurers were therefore not liable under section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
2. “Arising out of”. The expression is wider than “caused by” and does not require a direct or proximate relationship. It nevertheless requires a relatively strong causal connection. It excludes cases where the vehicle is merely casually concomitant with, rather than causally connected to, the relevant act or injury. The inquiry concerns the relationship between the injury and the use of the vehicle at the time of injury, assessed in all the circumstances. The purpose of the vehicle’s use is relevant.
3. Application. Although the assaults occurred in the taxi, the chain between its use on the road and the injuries was broken by Worboys’ separate, premeditated criminal acts. The injuries resulted from administering sedatives and committing or attempting sexual assaults, not from the use of the taxi for transport. The taxi’s location was not conclusive.
4. Intentional conduct. The authorities establish that compulsory insurance may cover liability arising from an intentional criminal use of a vehicle where the injury is caused by that use. They did not require cover for poisoning or sexual assaults which were not caused by, and did not arise out of, the vehicle’s use on a road.
5. Policy cover. The policy covered accidents involving the vehicle and permitted social, domestic and pleasure use and public hire. The essential character or primary purpose of the journey had to be assessed at the time of the incident, principally by reference to Worboys’ intention. By then, the journey had the essential purpose of carrying out sexual assaults, a criminal purpose outside the permitted uses.
6. Final answers. The injuries did not arise out of use of the vehicle on a road. The deliberate poisoning and sexual assaults were neither required to be insured under section 145(3)(a) nor covered by the policy. The use was outside the permitted policy purposes. The insurers were not liable to satisfy the assumed judgments.