Taxi Driver Online

Recovery of hire charges.
_________________________


MOHMED SALIM DHALECH v EMIL SINU (2006)

CC (Manchester) (Recorder Main QC) 3/3/2006

PERSONAL INJURY - DAMAGES

CAUSATION : HIRE CHARGES : MITIGATION : NECK : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : SOFT TISSUE : RECOVERY OF HIRE CHARGES : MITIGATION OF LOSS BY REPLACEMENT OF VEHICLE : TAXIS

A taxi driver whose vehicle had been written-off as a result of the defendant's negligence had been entitled to wait for payment of compensation for its loss from the defendant's insurers before replacing his vehicle, and he had been entitled to recover the costs of hiring an alternative vehicle in the meantime.

The claimant (C) claimed damages in respect of a road traffic accident with the defendant (D). D had driven his motor vehicle out of a side street and collided with the front nearside of C's private hire taxi vehicle as he drove along the main road at approximately 30 miles per hour. C suffered a minor soft tissue neck injury as a result. C's vehicle was recovered from the scene of the accident and stored pending examination. Two days later an engineer examined the vehicle and reported extensive damage. C hired another vehicle so that he could continue working as a taxi driver. Shortly afterwards D's insurers admitted that the vehicle was a total loss and agreed the amount to be paid to C. C used the hire vehicle for another five months, until he had received payment from D's insurers, and sought to recover the hire charges from D, together with damages for personal injury. D argued that, based on the police accident report, the damage to C's vehicle was merely a slight dent and there had been no reason for it to have been recovered and stored. Further, that C should have mitigated his loss by cancelling the hire vehicle when D had admitted that his vehicle was a total loss and had agreed the amount he was to be compensated for it.

HELD: (1) On the balance of probability, the damage found by the engineer two days later was likely to have been the same as, or similar to, the damage caused in the accident. The damage was consistent with a side impact at 30 miles per hour. On the evidence, the vehicle had required removal and storage pending examination and C was entitled to recover those costs. (2) D's insurance company had been well aware within a few days of the accident that C had hired a taxi-driving vehicle at some expense. Not long afterwards they had accepted that his vehicle was total loss and had agreed the amount to be paid to C, but had not made the payment for a further five months. C had lost his means of income in the accident. In the circumstances, it had been reasonable for C to wait for payment before he mitigated his loss by purchasing a replacement vehicle. Within a week of receiving payment C had purchased a replacement vehicle for a sum not dissimilar to the sum he had received. Therefore, the lack of payment had been, in the material contributory sense, the cause as to why he had not purchased a replacement vehicle earlier. (3) On the limited evidence available, the injury was not serious and was likely to be short lived, taking perhaps a few weeks to recover. It was at the lower end of the bracket for soft tissue injuries in the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines. The award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity was £1,000.

Judgment for claimant

Counsel:
For the claimant: Mr Orr
For the defendant: Miss Hicks

Unreported
____________________________