The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) and dismissed Liam Rothwell’s claim arising from a 1995 collision near Daly’s Cross, Co. Limerick. The Court held that the evidence did not establish negligence by the unidentified driver, which was required before the Bureau could be liable under its agreement with the Minister for the Environment.
Rothwell said oil spilled onto the road caused his BMW to lose control and strike an oncoming vehicle. Garda Laing found both vehicles on the plaintiff’s incorrect side of the road and observed an oil slick about 50 feet long. He could not identify the substance or establish its source.
An engineer retained by Rothwell told the High Court that the slick was probably a small quantity of fuel, possibly from a lorry or truck with a missing, defective or improperly fitted fuel cap. The High Court accepted that as the most likely explanation, but found there was no evidence explaining why the cap was missing or defective, or why the spill occurred. It rejected Rothwell’s argument that the circumstances themselves supported an inference of negligence under the rule known as res ipsa loquitur.
Despite that finding, the High Court ruled in Rothwell’s favour, reasoning that the MIBI agreement was intended to provide compensation where no other compensation was available. The Bureau appealed.
The Supreme Court said the agreement made negligence in the driving of the unidentified vehicle a condition of the Bureau’s liability. It accepted the High Court’s relevant factual findings, including that the spill might have occurred with or without negligence. The Court held that the burden of proof did not shift: the circumstances were not within the exclusive knowledge or particular capacity of either party to explain. A gap in the evidence therefore counted against Rothwell, who had to prove negligence.
Rothwell also argued on appeal that proving negligence was unnecessary under a European insurance directive. The Supreme Court did not decide that argument because it had not been pleaded or advanced in the High Court, where the case had instead relied on res ipsa loquitur.
The Court allowed the Bureau’s appeal and dismissed the claim. It did not find that the unidentified driver was negligent; it held that negligence had not been proved as required for the Bureau’s liability.