1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
Customer Wins Claim for Goods Lost in Stolen Van
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN ACTION arising out of the theft of a hired van containing goods belonging to a customer of the hirer, was decided by Mr. Justice Paull in the Queen's Bench Division.
His Lordship awarded L. Harris (Harella), Ltd., of Goswell Road, London, E.C., £1,255 5s. Id. daMages against the second defendants, Burn Transit. Ltd., the owners of the van, of Fountain Road, London, S.W., who in turn were given an indemnity against the first defendants, Continental Express, Ltd.. the hirers of the van, of Old Bailey. London,EC.. The van contained 24 parcels of skirts. • It was agreed, said the judge, that the van driver had been negligent in leaving the van unlocked with the ignition key in position.
Burn Transit pleaded that the contract between them 'and Continental Express was in such terms that at the time of The theft the Van driver, although in the general service of Burn Transit, was actually in the employment of Continental Express and the goods: never came into the possession of Burn Transit.
In the judge's view, that defence failed. The whole of the facts taken together did not amount to a transfer of the driver's employment from Burn Transit to Continental Express. Except that the van had the name of the hirer painted on it. there was no essential difference between this arrangement and the case where a. car and driver was hired for the day. Clearly Harris' were entitled to
succeed against Burn Transit. .
Dealing with the third party proceedings, his Lordship said these depended upon the interpretation of Clause 12 of the hire contract which read The' hirer shall indemnify Burn 'Transit, Ltd., in relation to any claim arising out of goods carried or left in the hired vehicles." The question was whether this clause was wide enough to cover the negligence of an employee, "In my judgment, Clause 12 could have no effect apart from negligence and 1 find that the words are sufficiently wide to cover this loss," said •Mr. Justice Paull, He found that Burn Transit were entitled to succeed in their claim against Continental Express for:an indemnity.
Accordingly he gave judgment for Continental Express against L. Harris, with costs; and judgment for L. Harris against Burn Transit for £1,255 5s. Id.
A stay of execution pending consideration of an appeal was granted to both transport concerns.