Launchbury v Morgans [1973] AC 127

• Defendant’s car was being used by her husband and he had been drinking and got a sober friend (C) to drive.

• The friend’s negligent driving led to Plaintiff being injured and the husband killed.

• Plaintiff sued Defendant as the owner of the car (as well as administrator of her husband’s estate) on the grounds that C was her agent: she had told the husband to get a friend to drive if he was drunk.

• HL rejected Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant in this capacity, since to fix vicarious liability on the owner of a car, it must be shown that the driver was using it for the owner’s purposes under delegation of a task or duty; that the owner's interest in or concern for the safety of the car or its occupants was not sufficient.

  • Therefore C wasn’t the wife’s agent.

Lord Wilberforce

• To establish vicarious liability in such a case it has to be shown that C was using the car “for the owner's purposes, under delegation of a task or duty.”

• He rejects Denning MR’s idea in CA to substitute this “clear” test for a vaguer one of mere “interest”.

• Vicarious liability is grounded in the idea of respondeat superior - the owner ought to pay - because he has ordered the action. Here the owner had no control over the actor, C.

• Denning MR’s theory that the owner or hirer of the car is liable for all accidents that occur when it is under his control is wrong.