References: [1975] RTR 453
Coram: Lord Widgery CJ
Ratio: The defendant believed that a driver was the holder of a driving licence and permitted him to use the vehicle, when the driver was not in fact such a holder. The prosecutor appealed his acquittal.
Held: Considering Newbury v Davis. The justices did not find that he imposed a condition on the use of the van. They found that he permitted the van to be used in the honest and mistaken belief that all would be well. That is not enough on authority to excuse him and the justices were wrong here in deciding that they could acquit.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1972 143
This case cites:
- Distinguished – Newbury v Davis QBD ([1974] RTR 367)
The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner’s absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance.
Held: The appeal against conviction was . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Applied – Ferrymasters Ltd v Adams ([1980] RTR 139)
Employers were alleged to have caused or permitted an employee to drive a vehicle on the road while not holding a driving licence authorising him to do so. When the employee had entered the employment, the employers had ensured that he held a valid . . - Cited – Philip Owen Lloyd-Wolper v Robert Moore; National Insurance Guarantee Corporation Plc, Charles Moore CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 766, Times 06-Aug-04, [2004] 3 All ER 741, [2004] 1 WLR 2350)
The first defendant drove a car belonging to his father and insured by his father. The father consented to the driving but under a mistaken belief that his son was licensed. The claimant was injured by the defendant in a road traffic accident.
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 29 April 2017
Ref: 199926
The post Baugh v Crago: QBD 1975 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.