Morris v Ford Motor Co [1973] QB 792

• Plaintiff worked for cleaning firm X at Defendant’s factory. One of Defendant’s employees, R, negligently injured Plaintiff. In the contract between X and Defendant, X agreed to indemnify Defendant against the negligence of either party’s servants and agreed that there had to be insurance.

• Plaintiff sued Defendant.

• Defendant claimed indemnity under the contract so that X would have to indemnify Defendant. X had to accept this, but, due to subrogation, insisted on having Defendant’s rights against R so as to reclaim the indemnity it would have to pay for Defendant.

• CA refused to compel Defendant to lend its title to X to reclaim money from R on the grounds that:

  1. It would be unfair to do so

     • (Lord Denning argues that the insurance companies can and should bear the burden of compensating X and it would be unfair if an individual such as R should be made liable + it would lead to a strike); and

  2. There is an implied term that the indemnity clause does not give rise to any subrogation within the contract

     • (James LJ says that subrogation would be “unacceptable and unrealistic” in the industrial setting but fails to clarify).

• NB the difference between this case and Lister is that here the indemnification term is explicit since Lister prevented such a clause from being implied, which Lord Denning calls “unfortunate”.

RELATED CASES

• Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co.