By Kate Archer & Samantha Betts
|Published 20 May 2026
DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited (DACB Claims), acting on behalf of Ainscough Crane Hire Limited (the claimant) and its insurers recently succeeded in bringing a claim for an indemnity and/or contribution in respect of damages paid in relation to a number of accidents caused by hydraulic oil which had leaked from one of the claimant's vehicles onto the road surface.
To view the judgment in full, click here.
The claimant had engaged Hydraquip Hose & Hydraulics Limited (the defendant) to supply it with services including the supply and installation of hydraulic hoses on its cranes. The defendant warranted that its work would be undertaken with skill, care and diligence, and agreed to indemnify the claimant against third party liabilities arising from its negligence.
A little less than 15 months after one of the defendant's employees had replaced a hose on one of the claimant's vehicles, that crane was driving on a motorway when the driver noticed that the coolant temperature warning light on the vehicle’s dashboard was illuminated. The driver stated that having stopped the vehicle when it was safe to do so, he looked and observed steam emerging from near the vehicle's exhaust so returned to the claimant's depot.
It subsequently transpired that the crane had leaked hydraulic oil onto the highway, resulting in road traffic accidents and damage to the highway surface. The oil had leaked from a perforated hydraulic hose inside the crane which had been previously replaced by the defendant's employee. The failed hose was subsequently replaced by one of the defendant's employees.
The claimant received several third party claims arising out of the oil spillage including three personal injury claims arising out of accidents caused by vehicles which skidded on the hydraulic oil, a claim from a local authority for the clean-up of the road surface, as well as a significant claim for repairs to the motorway.
The claimant commenced proceedings against the defendant seeking an indemnity and/or contribution in respect of the claims that it faced arising out of the spillage of hydraulic oil. The defendant denied liability and also alleged that even if there was liability on its part, there had been contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The court ordered that there be a preliminary trial to deal with the issues of liability and causation.
At trial, the claimant was represented by Richard Whitehall KC instructed by DACB Claims, the matter being conducted by Kate Archer, Partner and Samantha Betts, Senior Litigation Executive, and Sophia Murphy, Senior Complex Loss Handler from Aviva Insurance Ltd.
At trial, the claimant called five lay witnesses, the defendant called one. Both parties also called evidence from one expert. Having examined in detail the evidence of the lay and expert witnesses, the judge turned to the legal argument, noting that the claimant's primary case was the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, (the thing speaks for itself) a rule of law which allows negligence to be inferred from the circumstances of an accident without direct evidence of a defendant’s actions. The claimant argued, in the alternative, that the evidence established that the incident and the resulting damage and loss were caused by the negligence of the defendant.
The judge was satisfied that, contrary to the defendant's arguments, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied but went on to note that the point was somewhat academic as the claimant had established that, on the factual findings made, the failure of the hydraulic line had been due to the negligent fitting of the hose, an act for which the defendant was responsible.
Finally, the judge concluded that the defendant had failed to establish any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
The defendant was therefore held wholly responsible for the oil leak and the resulting damage caused to the highway and to those injured in various road traffic accidents that occurred that day.
The case shows the benefit of (in the right cases) settling primary claims before pursuing claims for an indemnity or contribution. This is particularly relevant where a party fails to engage in the settlement process and maintains, what was eventually determined to be, an unsustainable position and could have led to significant additional costs being incurred in the underlying claims.
Tenacity and extensive preparation by the claimant throughout and, particularly in the lead up to the trial, proved to be invaluable and contributed in no small part to the successful outcome.
For more information or advice, please contact one of our experts in our Motor Injury Team.
