SUBROGATION AND INDEMNITY

Abstract

A Ford employee named Roberts carelessly drove a forklift truck into Morris, a person employed by Ford's cleaning contractor, Cameron. Morris sued Ford. Ford admitted vicarious liability for Roberts' negligence, and claimed against Cameron under a clause in the cleaning contract whereby Cameron had agreed to indemnify Ford against any loss or liability arising out of the cleaning operation. Cameron conceded liability to Ford under this clause and now sought an indemnity from Roberts, the careless employee of Ford: Morris v Ford Motor Co. [1973] 2 W.L.R. 843. The trial judge upheld Cameron's claim, but the Court of Appeal (Stamp L.J. dissenting) allowed Roberts' appeal on the ground that an implied term in the indemnity clause (or, per Lord Denning M.R., equitable considerations) excluded Cameron's normal right, as indemnitor, to be subrogated to Ford's right of recourse against Roberts, their careless employee, this right of recourse having been held by the House of Lords in Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. [1957] A.C. 555 to enure even to the insured employer. Cameron has been granted leave to appeal, so the House of Lords has a good opportunity to reconsider Lister. While, at the technical level, Morris turns on the implications of a contract of indemnity and Lister deals with the implications in a contract of employment, the situation underlying both cases raises basic questions about the interaction of tort and that most familiar of indemnity contracts, insurance.