Clark & Ors v General Accident Fire & Ors [1998] UKHL 36

Two claimants were injured in separate incidents in car parks – one struck by a car in an open car park, another injured by fire in a multi-storey car park. The House of Lords held that car parks do not constitute 'roads' under the Road Traffic Act 1988, meaning compulsory motor insurance requirements did not apply to these locations.

Facts

These conjoined appeals concerned whether car parks constitute ‘roads’ under section 145(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which requires motor insurance for vehicles used on roads. In the first case, Ellen Clarke was sitting on a kerb in an open car park in Grimsby when struck by a car driven by Paul Kato. In the second case, Stuart Cutter was injured by fire caused by ignited lighter fuel while sitting in a parked car in a multi-storey car park in Tunbridge Wells. Neither claimant could recover from the drivers directly, so they sought recovery from the insurance companies under section 151 of the Act.

The Car Parks

Clarke’s car park was an open area behind shops with marked parking bays and vehicular access from a public road, with a pedestrian passage leading through to a parade of shops. Cutter’s car park was a conventional multi-storey structure with designated parking spaces between carriageways on each floor.

Issues

The central issue was whether the word ‘road’ in section 145(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 includes car parks, thereby triggering the compulsory insurance requirements and enabling recovery from insurers under section 151.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed both appeals, holding that neither car park constituted a ‘road’ for the purposes of the Act.

Definition of Road

Lord Clyde, delivering the leading judgment, analysed the statutory definition in section 192 which defines ‘road’ for England and Wales as ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access’. He emphasised that both physical character and function must be considered:

Essentially a road serves as a means of access. It leads from one place to another and constitutes a route whereby travellers may move conveniently between the places to which and from which it leads. It is thus a defined or at least a definable way intended to enable those who pass over it to reach a destination.

Distinction Between Roads and Car Parks

Lord Clyde drew a clear functional distinction between roads and car parks:

The proper function of a road is to enable movement along it to a destination. Incidentally a vehicle on it may be stationary. One can use a road for parking. The proper function of a car park is to enable vehicles to stand and wait. A car may be driven across it; but that is only incidental to the principal function of parking.

This distinction was reinforced by the legislation itself, particularly section 25 of the 1988 Act which refers to ‘a motor vehicle on a road or on a parking place’, expressly recognising these as distinct concepts.

Purposive Construction Rejected

The Court rejected arguments for a purposive construction that would extend ‘road’ to include car parks. Lord Clyde noted that while purposive construction may be appropriate in some contexts:

But it cannot be taken to the length of applying unnatural meanings to familiar words or of so stretching the language that its former shape is transformed into something which is not only significantly different but has a name of its own.

European Directives

The Court considered three European Directives on motor insurance but concluded they did not require ‘road’ to be construed as including car parks. The Directives recognised that different Member States may have different scopes of compulsory insurance cover.

Implications

This decision clarified that compulsory motor insurance requirements under the Road Traffic Act 1988 do not extend to car parks. The distinction between roads and car parks has significant consequences for victims of accidents occurring in car parks, who cannot claim against insurers under section 151. Lord Clyde acknowledged the unfortunate position of the claimants but stated that any change must come from Parliament:

One cannot but feel sympathy for the unfortunate victims of these two accidents but it must be for the Legislature to decide as matter of policy whether a remedy should be provided in such cases as these.

The judgment also highlighted practical consequences of extending ‘road’ to car parks, including potential issues with local authority charging powers and vehicle lighting regulations.

Verdict: Both appeals allowed. The House of Lords held that car parks do not constitute ‘roads’ under section 145(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, meaning the compulsory insurance requirements did not apply and the claimants could not recover from the insurance companies under section 151.

Source: Clark & Ors v General Accident Fire & Ors [1998] UKHL 36