Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 23


     
     1        This is reported in [1939] 2 All ER, 688.
     2
     3                  "A motor cyclist was killed in a collision
     4             between his motor cycle and a lorry driven by a
     5             servant of the defendants.  The driver was the
     6             only person who could give evidence as to how
     7             the accident happened.  This driver made certain
     8             statements at the inquest, and in this action
     9             the plaintiff (the father of the motor cyclist)
    10             sought to administer an interrogatory to the
    11             defendant council asking that the defendant
    12             council should admit that their driver made
    13             certain statements at the inquest.  It was not
    14             suggested that the driver was an agent of the
    15             council to make any admission:-
    16                  HELD:  as the admissions of the driver
    17             would not be evidence against the defendant
    18             council in the absence of proof that the driver
    19             was an agent to make them, the proposed
    20             interrogatory must be disallowed."
    21
    22        My Lord, the judgments, again, are short, beginning at
    23        page 689, letter F of the judgment of
    24        Sir Wilfrid Greene M.R.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  Sorry -----
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:  689, the next page in the bundle.
    29
    30             "This appeal must be allowed.  The interrogatory
    31             which the plaintiff seeks to administer to the
    32             defendant corporation is one asking that the
    33             defendant corporation should admit that their
    34             lorry driver made certain statements at the
    35             inquest.  It is not suggested that the lorry
    36             driver was the agent of the defendants to make
    37             admissions, and admissions by the lorry driver
    38             would not be evidence against the defendant in
    39             the absence of proof to that effect.
    40                  The judge thought that the case was really
    41             similar to that of Sloan v. Hanson, decided in
    42             this court.  In that case, this court confirmed
    43             an order of Asquith J., who had allowed an
    44             interrogatory asking whether or not the
    45             defendant had at an inquest made certain
    46             statements which were set out in conjunction
    47             with the interrogatory.  In that case, the
    48             person who it was sought to interrogate was the
    49             defendant himself, and the admission which the
    50             answer to that interrogatory would have elicited 
    51             would have been an admission by the defendant 
    52             himself.  In the present case, however, the only 
    53             result of the answer to the interrogatory would
    54             be, not an admission by the defendants as to the
    55             way in which their driver was driving, but an
    56             admission by the defendants that on a particular
    57             occasion their servant, not being an agent to
    58             make an admission, made a particular statement,
    59             which is a different thing altogether."
    60

Prev Next Index