Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. For members
  3. Journal Archive
  4. Issues
  5. April 2023
  6. Stormy seas for the defence of automatism

Stormy seas for the defence of automatism

Automatism as the cause of a road accident should not allow a driver’s insurers to avoid liability to an innocent third party
17th April 2023 | Jo Clancy

The concept of insurance can be traced back to the Roman Empire, where under maritime law shippers took out insurance to protect themselves against the risk of losing their ships to stormy seas, pirates, and technical failures. Following this legacy, car insurance (a legal requirement since the 1930s) has become the safety net that protects drivers from claims when they negligently cause a road accident that causes injuries to others or damages their property.

But what happens if you cause a road accident due to a sudden medical event such as experiencing a stroke or fainting? In the field of motoring insurance, this is known as “automatism”, the experience of a sudden serious medical episode which can be a complete defence to both a criminal and/or civil claim. Automatism occupies an anomalous space that was recently successfully challenged in one case by RTA Law.

The defence of automatism is certainly necessary in criminal law, where the concept of mens rea is still one of the touchstones of justice. If a driver suffers from a medical episode which renders them unconscious, they should not be found guilty of any criminal offence that follows, as they had no control over their actions, therefore no criminal intent.

Civil consequences

However, going back to the genesis of insurance itself, while the criminal intention of a driver responsible for an accident in a civil case can be considered as something of an irrelevance, it does not follow that a defence of automatism should be allowed to enable insurers to escape liability where these unusual circumstances result in injury to a third party. The negative implications of allowing such a defence were highlighted recently in one of our cases.

In May 2019, a motorcyclist instructed us to represent him after he suffered significant, life-changing injuries following a head-on collision when a driver travelling in the opposite direction veered into his lane, throwing him from his motorcycle. It was the driver’s position that he had caused the accident after suddenly falling unconscious at the wheel due to a medical episode. The driver’s insurance company then attempted to rely on the defence of automatism and refused to settle the motorcyclist’s claim for damages. As a result, our client was denied funds to pay for rehabilitation or cover his loss of earnings, despite the fact that he had been completely blameless.

There is very limited Scottish civil authority on what, in law, amounts to involuntary conduct, but there are a number of reported decisions from the English courts. Involuntary conduct is a defence to an action brought in negligence in Scotland. It is likely the English authorities will be highly persuasive in Scottish courts. In raising the defence of automatism, the onus is on the defender to satisfy the court that the negligent act was involuntary and it was not reasonably foreseeable that the event giving rise to the involuntary conduct would occur. The defender’s loss of control must be complete, and impairment will not suffice.

Prior awareness

We raised an action for damages in the Court of Session on behalf of the motorcyclist against the driver and the insurance company. If the court accepted the defence of automatism, the action for damages would fail. Evidence was obtained from two witnesses travelling behind the car involved, who saw the defender driving erratically for short periods in the final minutes before the collision. For periods in between episodes of erratic driving, they also witnessed the driver navigating bends with care and reducing speed when entering a 30mph zone.

The evidence of the defender’s sporadic erratic driving was supported by the opinion of an expert cardiologist, who considered that the defender had most likely been suffering with symptoms of a medical condition which, in short but not immediate course, would have led to a loss of consciousness. On the opinion of the cardiologist, we argued that the defence of automatism should not be upheld because the defender’s condition had deteriorated over time, rather than worsening suddenly or without warning. The defender would have been aware of the symptoms and should have brought his vehicle to a controlled stop before losing consciousness. In doing so, the collision could have been avoided. The case proceeded through the court for two years before a settlement figure was finally agreed and our injured motorcyclist was compensated for his injuries and losses.

Going back to the ancient origins of insurance, the fact that the insurers had to be pursued through the courts to challenge their argument of automatism does rather beg some existential questions of motoring insurance, when it cannot provide innocent victims with a civil remedy if the very worst happens – whatever the circumstances. Rather like a storm at sea 2,000 years ago, an episode of automatism today can seemingly appear from almost nowhere – but that shouldn’t mean that injured parties, impacted by its disastrous effects, should be left exposed and unprotected.

The Author

Jo Clancy is an associate with RTA Law LLP

Share this article
Add To Favorites
https://lawware.co.uk/

Regulars

  • People on the move: April 2023
  • Book reviews: April 2023
  • Reading for pleasure: April 2023

Perspectives

  • Opinion: Andrew Ormiston
  • President's column: April 2023
  • Editorial: With the crowd
  • Profile: Laura McBain
  • Viewpoints: April 2023

Features

  • When hard cases make Good Law
  • Building families through surrogacy
  • Charities: a partial way forward
  • The perils of fundraising: tales from the US
  • Valuing the not so close
  • A Scottish Environment Court: breaking new ground?

Briefings

  • Criminal court: Towards proper control
  • Planning: NPF4 – an emerging housing issue
  • Insolvency: Court confirms overseas winding up approach
  • Tax: R&D relief – welcome changes but outlook uncertain
  • Immigration: Family reunions given new rules
  • Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal
  • In-house: Support to suit

In practice

  • Breaking up not so hard?
  • Tradecraft tips: April 2023
  • Risk: Client account fraud – an ongoing issue
  • The Scottish Legal Walks return
  • What do you know about memory?
  • The Unloved Lawyer: Why am I still in the law?
  • Ask Ash: The challenge of promotion
  • Public policy highlights: April 2023

Online exclusive

  • Stormy seas for the defence of automatism
  • UK data protection: the relaunched reforms
  • Sentence discounting: a risk to the vulnerable
  • Construction and competition: CMA takes a hard line

In this issue

  • Five steps to success
  • Everything you need to know about...

Recent Issues

Dec 2023
Nov 2023
Oct 2023
Sept 2023
Search the archive

Additional

Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited