PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Can a motor insurer sued directly under the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 (2002 Regulations) bring a Part 20 claim in its own name pursuant to the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (CL(C)A 1978)? The potential additional party argued not. Written by Jamie Clarke, barrister at Crown Office Chambers.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE
To read the full news article, register for a free Lexis+ trial
**Trials are provided to all ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
* denotes a required field
Scope and impact of vicarious liabilityRelationships sufficiently akin to employmentIn Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants, Lord Phillips famously stated at para [19]:‘The law of vicarious liability is on the move.’The relationship that will most often give rise to vicarious liability
Vicarious liability in the course of employment—the close connection testTo identify the circumstances in which a court may find an employer to be vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee it is useful to trace the development of the doctrine.Salmond testHistorically, the test to be
Material contribution in personal injury claimsThe standard test for determining whether the defendant’s breach caused the claimant’s loss is the ‘but for’ test. This test requires the court to consider: but for the breach of the duty by the defendant, would the claimant have sustained the damage?
Was the damage foreseeable?STOP PRESS: This Practice Note is under review in the light of the Supreme Court decision in: Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 6. For further information, see: LNB News 14/02/2024 62.The concept of foreseeability and remoteness in
0330 161 1234