Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
This case note relates to the recent judgement (23 October 2012) by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case No C-300/10 concerning interrelation of the European Union motor insurance law and the national civil liability regulation. As the civil liability arising from motor traffic accidents is not approximated by the European Union law, its regulation falls within the national law. Yet, application of the national civil liability law shall not undermine the obligation to provide insurance coverage for victims of road traffic accidents. The discussed case concerns a situation when a victim who was not fastened by a seat belt at the moment of a motor traffic accident was injured, and this raises a question whether such victim may be compensated due to contributory negligence. This note provides a brief summary of the previous case law, facts, review of Advocate's General Opinion and the judgment and their analysis.
1 Sometimes motor insurance is referred to as automobile insurance (see, for instance, Jerry, R. H. II, and Richmond, D. R., Understanding Insurance Law, 5th ed. (LexisNexis, 2012), at p. 917 et seq.Google Scholar).
2 For the motor insurance and its specifics, see, for instance, Birds, J., Modern Insurance Law, 7th ed. (London, 2007), at p. 379 et seq.Google Scholar
3 The motor insurance as the third party insurance shall be distinguished from the non-compulsory cover of the driver itself or the vehicle as first party insurance ( see Merkin, R., Colinvaux's Law of Insurance, 8th ed.(London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006), at pp. 836–845 Google Scholar).
4 Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability [Codifying Motor Insurance Directive] [2009] OJ L 263/11.
5 As established by Art. 26 TFEU (ex 14 EC).
6 Art. 3 (1) of the First Motor Insurance Directive (Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability [First Motor Insurance Directive] [1972] OJ L 103/1.). It corresponds to Art. 3 (1) of the Codifying Motor Insurance Directive.
7 Art. 2(1) of the Second Motor Insurance Directive (Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles [Second Motor Insurance Directive] [1984] OJ L 8/17).
8 As provided by Art. 3(1) of the First Motor Insurance Directive (Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles [Third Motor Insurance Directive] [1990] OJ L 129/33) as well as Art.1a of the Third Motor Insurance Directive.
9 As explicitly provided by Art. 3 (1) of the First Motor Insurance Directive.
10 For the concept of contributory negligence, see below Ch. 6 of this note.
11 Case C-300/10, Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida v Companhia de SegurosFidelidade-Mundial SA and Others [2012] ECR I-00000.
12 Case C-129/94, Criminal proceedings against Rafael Ruiz Bernáldez [1996] ECR I-01829.
13 Supra note 12, at para. 13.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., at paras. 20–21, 24.
16 Ibid., at paras. 22 – 24.
17 J. Stuyck, “Case notes”, [1996] 33 C.M.L.R. 1266.
18 Case C-316/93, Nicole Vaneetveld v Le Foyer SA and Le Foyer SA v Fédération des Mutualités Socialistes et Syndicales de la Province de Liège [1994] ECR I-00763.
19 Case C-348/98, Vitor Manuel Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confiança SA [2000] ECR I-06711. Affirmed in the later CJEU case law (Case C-166/02, Daniel Fernando Messejana Viegas v Companhia de Seguros Zurich SA and Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal SA [2003] ECR I-07871).
20 See S. Petz, T. Ostergaard, et al., “Case notes”, [2003] 11 European Review of Private Law 815–816.
21 Supra note 19, at para. 32. Affirmed by CJEU in: Case C-158/01, Catherine Withers v Samantha Delaney and Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland [2002] ECRI-08301.
22 Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles [Fifth Motor Insurance Directive] [2005] OJ L 149/14.
23 See Art. 1 (1) and Art. 1a of the Third Motor Insurance Directive; supra note 21 (C-158/01); Case C-442/10 Churchill Insurance Company Limited v Benjamin Wilkinson and Tracy Evans v Equity Claims Limited [2011] ECR I-00000.
24 Case C-537/03, Katja Candolin, Jari-Antero Viljaniemi and VeliMatti Paananen v Vahinkovakuutusosakeyhtiö Pohjola and Jarno Ruokoranta [2005] ECR I-05745.
25 Ibid., paras. 25 – 26.
26 Ibid., paras. 27 – 32.
27 J. Birds, Modern Insurance Law, supra note 2, p. 379.
28 Case C-356/05, Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, Minister for the Environment, Ireland, Attorney General and Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) [2007] ECR I-03067.
29 Supra note 28, at paras. 37 – 38.
30 D. Looschelders, “Schutz von Fahrzeuginsassen durch die Kfz Haftpflichtversicherung: Anmerkung zu EuGH, Urteil vom 19.4.2007, C-356/05 - Elaine Farrell/Alan Whitty”, [2007] Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht 275.
31 Case C-484/09, Manuel Carvalho Ferreira Santos v Companhia Europeia de Seguros SA [2011] ECR I-01821.
32 Case C-409/09, José Maria Ambrósio Lavrador and Maria Cândida Olival Ferreira Bonifácio v Companhia de SegurosFidelidade Mundial SA [2011] ECR I-00000.
33 For discussion and criticism of the approach exploited in this case-law, see Ch. 6 below.
34 Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak in Case C-300/10 Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade Mundial SA and Others [2012] ECR I-00000.
35 Supra note 11, at paras. 27 – 32.
36 Ibid., at paras. 31 – 33.
37 Ibid., at para. 34.
38 Ibid., at paras. 35 – 38.
39 Ibid., at para. 39.
40 Specifically, in Katja Candolin case, Elaine Farrell case, Manuel Carvalho Ferreira Santos case, and José Maria Ambrósio Lavrador and Maria Cândida Olival Ferreira Bonifácio case (see Ch. 2 above).
41 Case E-1/99 Storebrand Skadeforsikring AS v Veronika Finanger. Available at http://www.eftacourt.int/uploads/tx_nvcases/1_99_RH_EN.pdf. For its brief discussion, see R. Merkin, Colinvaux’s Law of Insurance, supra note 3, at p. 792.
42 Supra note 41, at para. 41.
43 Case 33/78, Somafer SA v Saar-Ferngas AG [1978] ECR 02183.
44 Ibid.
45 Samuel, G., Law of Obligations (Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2010), at pp. 176–179.Google Scholar
46 Pollock, F., Law of Torts: A Treatise on the Principles of Obligations arising from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law: to which is added the Draft of a Code of Civil Wrongs prepared for the Government of India, 4 ed. (London: Stevens and Sons, 1895)Google Scholar, Annex D ‘Contributory Negligence in Roman Law’. Though the concept of contributory negligence was discussed in the Roman law sources, as shown by F. Pollock, the Roman lawyers did not recognise its application (see Zimmermann, R., The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), at pp. 1010–1011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
47 Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition, supra note 46, at p. 1010. For the concept of contributory negligence, its origin and development in common law, see F. James Jr., “Contributory Negligence”, [1953] 62 Yale L.J. 691; for contributory negligence in the United Kingdom, especially concerning victims of road traffic accidents not fastened with a seat belt, see Tomkins, N., ‘Getting contributory negligence right’, Journal of Personal Injury Law, 2008, at pp. 196–201 Google Scholar. For criticism of contributory negligence from the point of view of the United States of America, see W.B.L. Little, ‘It is Much Easier to Find Fault With Others, Than to be Faultless Ourselves: Contributory Negligence as a Bar to a Claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability’, [2007] Campbell Law Review 81 et seq.
48 See Art. 254 of BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 2.Januar 2002 (BGBl. I S. 42, 2909; 2003 I S. 738), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 20. Dezember 2012 (BGBl. I S. 2749) geändert worden ist“); Art. 9 of the Road Traffic Act (Straßenverkehrsgesetz in der Fassung der Bekannt machung vom 5. März 2003 (BGBl. I S. 310, 919), das zuletzt durch Artikel 2 Absatz 118 des Gesetzes vom 22. Dezember 2011 (BGBl. I S. 3044) geändert worden ist).
49 van Dam, Cees, European Tort Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013), at pp. 360–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 C. van Dam, European Tort Law, supra note 49, at p. 362.
51 Art. 35 (1) of the Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law, Art. 2347 (1) of the Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of the year 1937 [the Latvian Civil Law]. Available in English at http://www.vvc.gov.lv.
52 M. Ebers, “Entschädigung von unfallgeschädigtenFahrzeuginsassen in der Kfz-Haftpflichtversicherung bei Mitverschulden”, [2007] Verbraucher und Recht 271.
53 C. van Dam, European Tort Law, supra note 49, at p. 361.
54 For overview of contributory negligence of victims of road traffic accidents not fastened with a seat belt in the United Kingdom, see N. Tomkins, ‘Getting contributory negligence right’, supra note 47, at pp. 196–201.
55 Froom v. Butcher [1976] Q. B. 286. Please note that 25 per cent reduction as a general rule in case of contributory negligence for not fastening with a seat belt was criticised in the legal literature (see Smith, P.R., ‘Contributory negligence and seat belts revisited’, Journal of Personal Injury Law, 2009, at pp. 41–45 Google Scholar; Tomkins, N., ‘Getting contributory negligence right (again)’, Journal of Personal Injury Law, 2009, at pp. 46–47 Google Scholar).
56 See R. Merkin, Colinvaux's Law of Insurance, supra note 3, at p. 792 (including the authority and statutes cited).
57 Froom v. Butcher [1976] Q. B. 292.
58 Supra note 34, at paras. 23 and 28.
59 R. Merkin, Colinvaux's Law of Insurance, supra note 3, at p. 752.
60 Supra note 34, at para. 71.
61 For unsuccessful efforts of the European Commission to harmonise national civil liability regulation within motor insurance, see C. van Dam, European Tort Law, supra note 49, at pp. 368 – 370.
62 Commission Decision of 17 January 2013 on setting up the Commission Expert Group on a European Insurance Contract Law (2013/C 16/03) [2013] OJ C16/6.
