Darcie Patricia Frances Berresford v Syed Masroor Haider Shah & Anor

A taxi driver owes passengers a continuing duty to take reasonable care for their safety. Driving away with a passenger in the vehicle, an open door and defective locks may breach that duty where it is foreseeable that the passenger will try to leave and suffer injury. A claimant’s potentially unlawful attempt to avoid payment does not automatically bar recovery. Under Patel v Mirza, the court must consider the purpose of the prohibition, other relevant public policies and whether denial of the claim would be proportionate. A small reduction for contributory negligence may nevertheless be appropriate where the claimant’s decision materially contributed to the injury.

The claimant, aged 17, was injured after falling from a moving taxi driven by the first defendant. The taxi had stopped at the destination, but the driver moved off with a rear sliding door open and its locking mechanism inoperative. The defendants alleged that the claimant and her friend intended to make off without paying the full fare and relied on illegality and contributory negligence.

The trial concerned the factual circumstances, negligence, foreseeability, the defence of ex turpi causa, and the claimant’s own contribution to the accident.

1. Witness evidence. The claimant was permitted to rely on the first defendant’s substantively defective witness statement under the principles in Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824. The defects reduced its reliability, so greater weight was given to the driver’s contemporaneous account to the police and to emergency-service records.
2. Negligence. A taxi driver owes passengers a duty to drive with reasonable care for their safety. That duty was breached by moving away with a young passenger in the rear, the door open and the relevant locks defective. The risk that she would try to leave, and be injured in doing so, was plainly foreseeable. The chain of causation was not broken by the claimant’s attempt to leave the moving vehicle. The reasoning in Hicks v Young [2015] EWHC 1144 and Beaumont v Fraser [2016] EWCA Civ 768 supported that conclusion.
3. Illegality. The defendants failed to prove that the claimant intended dishonestly to avoid payment, as required by section 3 of the Theft Act 1978. In any event, applying Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, denial of damages would not enhance the purpose of the criminal prohibition, would undermine the public policy of safe taxi driving, and would be disproportionate to the alleged fare evasion. The defence therefore failed.
4. Contributory negligence. The claimant acted imprudently in leaving the moving taxi rather than remaining inside. Having regard to the frightening and rapidly developing circumstances, her responsibility was limited. Damages were reduced by 10 per cent under section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
5. The claim in liability was made out. Damages, when assessed or agreed, were to be reduced by 10 per cent.