Causation in fact (Consecutive/successive) Flashcards
Performance Cars v Abraham [1962]
Facts
Here, the defendant, Abraham, had caused a motor accident with the claimant as a result of his own breach of reasonable duty. The claimant, who had been driving a luxury car, subsequently sued for damages. Significantly, the claimant’s car had already been in a recent motor accident as a result of a negligent third party driver which had damaged the luxury car’s paint job. For the earlier accident, the claimant had received £75 in damages for the cost of the car, although he had yet to receive the amount. The claimant then sought to recover the same amount from the perpetrator of the second amount. The Court determined that the same loss could not be doubly recovered from two different parties.
Issues
Which of the negligent drivers was responsible for paying for the luxury car’s repainting, or were they jointly liable for the £75?
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal held that the negligent driver from the first accident was liable to pay the entire sum owed to the claimant. Here Lord Evershed stated that were the Court to allow the claimant to recover costs from the second defendant where the need for a remedy (the respray) had already existed prior to the second collision, and thus was not caused by the second defendant would be illogical and unjust. The second defendant had not caused extra damage that the repainting necessary from the first accident would not have fixed, and so he was entirely resolved of liability.
Baker v
Willoughby [1970]
Facts
The complainant, Mr Baker, was a pedestrian who had been knocked down by the defendant driving a car in September 1964. The negligent driving by the defendant caused serious injury to his left leg, which left him with mobility problems and unable to work in the labour market as he did before. This led to reduced earnings. In November 1967 and before the trial, Mr Baker was an innocent victim of an armed robbery at his workplace and suffered several gunshot wounds to the leg. This was the same leg affected by the car accident and it was subsequently amputated.
Issues
The defendant argued that the shooting incident had broken the chain of causation and the injuries from the road accident no longer existed. The issue was whether the shooting was a new intervening act or if the defendant should be accountable for all losses suffered.
Decision / Outcome
The defendant was held to be liable for losses and reduced earnings, even after the shooting and amputation of the leg. The court took the view that if Mr Willoughby had not been negligent in his driving to begin with, the complainant would not have lost his leg. Thus, he was still liable as if the shooting had never happened and must compensate Mr Baker for losses after the amputation. It was stated that when there are two accidents that are consecutive and contribute to the same injury, the original defendant would be liable for the overall injury.
Jobling v Associated Diaries Ltd [1981]
Facts
The complainant was a butcher at Associated Dairies Ltd and he had slipped on the floor and suffered a slipped disc while at work, due to his employer’s negligence. As a result of his injuries, he was limited to carrying out light work, which saw his earnings reduced by 50 per cent of what they were prior to the accident. Four years later and before the trial, Mr Jobling had been diagnosed with a pre-existing spinal disease, which was not a result of the accident. It would eventually disable him entirely and he would be unable to work.
Issues
The lower courts applied Baker v Willoughby and the complainant was awarded damages beyond the diagnosis of the condition. The employer’s appealed against this decision. The issue was one of causation and whether his pre-existing spinal disease should be taken into account for assessing work-related damages. The appeal was based on whether Mr Jobling should receive loss of earnings for the partial incapacity and the future or only for the four years of work.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that the employer would only be liable for damages and partial loss of earnings for the four years Mr Jobling was employed. The court was critical and did not follow the decision in Baker v Willoughby; this was called an exception to the normal test of causation. His pre-existing spinal condition must be considered and all factors taken into account, in order for the court not to award excessive compensation. This was a case of the eggshell skull rule and an example of a ‘vicissitude of life’; it was relevant that the illness would cause full disability.
