Carroll v Taylor & Ors

For compulsory motor insurance, injuries arise out of the use of a vehicle only where there is a relevant causal connection between the injury and the vehicle’s use on a road or public place. The phrase is wider than “caused by”, but the causal chain has a reasonable limit. The court must consider the insured driver’s activities and purpose at the time of injury. Once a taxi journey has ended, subsequent events affecting a passenger are not ordinarily injuries arising out of the vehicle’s use. Foreseeability alone does not extend section 145(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Where the essential character of a journey is a criminal purpose outside the permitted use in the policy, section 151 does not require the insurer to meet the judgment.

The claimant suffered catastrophic injuries after a taxi driver stole his debit card and PIN, abandoned him several miles short of home, and drove away. The claimant later walked home and fell from a motorway bridge. He brought proceedings against the driver, the taxi owner, the taxi company and the insurer. The insurer’s policy provided only the compulsory cover required by the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Master Thornett directed trial of preliminary issues concerning whether the injuries arose out of use of the taxi under section 145(3)(a), and whether the policy responded to the pleaded tort claims. The central questions were whether the taxi journey remained relevant when the claimant was injured and whether the driver’s criminal purpose fell within the permitted use.

1. Question 1. The claimant’s injuries did not arise out of the use of the taxi on a road or public place within section 145(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The applicable principles were those in Dunthorne v Bentley [1996] RTR 428, approved by the Supreme Court in R & S Pilling (trading as Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd [2019] 2 WLR 1015: “arising out of” requires a causal relationship, though one less immediate than “caused by”. The causal chain has a reasonable limit.
2. The court had to examine the taxi driver’s activities and purpose at the time of injury. The claimant’s taxi journey ended when he left the taxi at the first cash point. He was not temporarily leaving the taxi to obtain money and resume the journey. The driver had used the taxi to steal the claimant’s card and PIN, intended to abandon him, and had no continuing connection with him. The claimant later chose to walk home and was injured more than 2 km away and at least 45 minutes after the journey ended. The taxi driver’s location and activity at the time of injury were unknown. These circumstances made any relevant causal link impossible to establish.
3. Foreseeability that an abandoned, intoxicated passenger might suffer injury did not provide a legal basis for liability under section 145(3)(a) once the journey had ended. The facts were far removed from the borderline case of Dunthorne v Bentley.
4. Question 2. The policy did not respond. Section 145 required insurance for the use to which the driver put the vehicle. The essential character of this journey was the driver’s criminal purpose of stealing from the claimant. That use was outside the policy’s permitted uses of social, domestic and pleasure purposes, the insured’s business, or carrying passengers for hire and reward under a Hackney Carriage Licence. Under section 151(2)(a), the liability was therefore not covered by the policy.
5. Following Keeley v Pashen [2005] 1 WLR 1226, the statutory scheme did not require the insurer to meet a judgment arising from a journey whose essential character was criminal and outside the permitted use. The claim against the insurer was dismissed.

This was a first-instance decision. The claim form was issued on 13 November 2018. On the insurer’s application, Master Thornett directed trial of four preliminary issues, later simplified into two questions. The High Court dismissed the claim against the Fourth Defendant insurer.