Geier v Kujawa, Weston & Warne Bros (Transport) Ltd
Hight Court
Citations: [1970] 1 Lloyds Rep 364.
Facts
The claimant was a passenger in the defendant’s taxi. The claimant could not speak any English, which was apparent to the defendant. Despite this, when the defendant pointed out an exclusion clause notice inside the vehicle, he did so in English without translating that clause. The notice stated that all passengers rode at their own risk.
The claimant was subsequently injured by the defendant’s negligent driving. When the claimant sued, the defendant relied on the exclusion notice. He asserted that he had given the claimant sufficient notice of the clause. This meant that the clause was incorporated into the taxi carriage contract. He also argued that he had given sufficient notice for the purposes of volenti non fit injuria.
Issue(s)
- Had the defendant given the claimant sufficient notice of the exclusion clause?
Decision
The High Court held in favour of the claimant. The defendant had not given sufficient notice for the purposes of contractual incorporation or volenti non fit injuria.
This Case is Authority For…
Normally, whether there has been sufficient notice is assessed objectively. The fact that the claimant has a special condition, such as illiteracy, which makes them unaware of the notice, is not relevant. This case shows that this does not apply where the defendant is aware of the claimant’s special condition. If the defendant is aware of the condition, he must take those steps which would reasonably bring the clause or danger to the notice of a person with the claimant’s condition.
