header-logo header-logo

24 May 2019 / Glyn Thompson
Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance , EU
printer mail-detail

Post-Pilling: what’s the use?

Glyn Thompson reflects on the Supreme Court’s assessment of what constitutes use & the possible impact of EU principles post Brexit
  • The Supreme Court had the first chance in generation to review the question of use and provide clarity on what constituted use.

Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes a person liable for an accident which was ‘caused by or arose from the use of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place’. For years, UK courts have wrestled with what constitutes ‘use’ within that definition. The judgment which has most concerned insurers over the last two decades came in the Court of Appeal case of Dunthorne v Bentley [1999] Lloyd’s Rep 560, [1994] Lexis Citation 1708 when it was held that parking a car at the side of the road after having run out of petrol and crossing the road to seek help from a colleague was ‘use’ when an accident arose as a result. With that as a benchmark, what else is ‘use’?

The definition debate

The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll