The Supreme Court has dismissed the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland’s appeal in a case about a pedestrian injured by a car taken from Talbot Street, Dublin. It held that the car owner’s carelessness did not make him liable for the injuries on the evidence presented.
The agreed facts were that Noel Corcoran left his car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, outside a coffee shop while he bought a sandwich. An unknown person drove away, turned into Talbot Lane and struck Patrick Breslin as he crossed the lane.
Breslin sued Corcoran for negligence and also sued the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) under an agreement covering victims of uninsured driving. The High Court ruled for Breslin against MIBI only. Damages had been agreed at £65,000, and the judge apportioned liability to MIBI. MIBI appealed, arguing that Corcoran’s admitted carelessness caused the injuries. The appeal concerned whether Corcoran was negligent; the Supreme Court noted that MIBI’s liability depended on the answer under the agreement.
Delivering judgment on 27 March 2003, Fennelly J said leaving a car unattended and unlocked with the keys in, in a busy city street without mitigating circumstances, was grossly careless. The Court considered the Road Traffic regulations requiring certain precautions when vehicles are left unattended on public roads, although no claim for breach of statutory duty had been made against Corcoran.
But the Court distinguished the foreseeable theft of the car from the further event that caused Breslin’s injuries: negligent driving. Applying the principles on intervening acts and reasonable probability, Fennelly J said liability could arise where the damage caused by another person was the very kind of thing the defendant should expect and guard against, and was likely to happen if precautions were not taken.
The judgment said there was no evidence in this case to show that Corcoran should reasonably have anticipated that whoever took the car would drive so carelessly as to injure another road user. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed MIBI’s appeal. The judgment did not set aside the High Court decree against MIBI; it left the result of that court’s ruling in place.