Copley v Lawn; Maden v Haller – WLR Daily

Posted June 22nd, 2009 in accidents, damages, insurance, law reports, negligence by sally

Copley v Lawn; Maden v Haller [2009] EWCA Civ 580; [2009] WLR (D) 200

“Where, following a road accident caused by a defendant’s negligence, the defendant’s insurers offered to provide a ‘free’ replacement car to the claimant while his own car was being repaired, the claimant could reasonably reject or ignore the offer if it did not make clear the cost of hire to the defendant for the purpose of enabling the claimant to make a realistic comparison with the cost to him of making his own hire car arrangements. If a claimant did unreasonably reject or ignore the offer, he did not forfeit his damages claim altogether but was entitled to recover at least the cost which the defendant could show he would reasonably have incurred. The general rule that the claimant could recover the market rate of hire for his loss of use prevailed, unless, and to the extent that, the defendant could show that, on the facts of a particular case, a car could have been provided more cheaply than at the market rate.”

WLR Daily, 19th June 2009


Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.