Extent of Injury

Question 1

EXTENSIVE DAMAGE Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd. [1967]

Answer 1

Facts
The claimant, Bradford, was an employee of the defendants, Robinson Rentals, and in the course of his employment it was requested that he be sent to assist a colleague in a vehicle repair. This request was made in January, during a time at which the defendants were aware of particularly bad weather concerns resulting from an unusually cold winter. The trip necessitated the claimant to endure a travelling time of approximately 20 hours’ driving (a distance of 450 to 500 miles in total), with both the vehicle that Bradford was driving, and the vehicle he was driving to, lacking any form of heating function. Subsequently, the exposure to the severely cold weather resulted in the claimant developing injuries stemming from frostbite, despite that he took reasonable caution in dressing warmly.

Issues
Were the injuries sustained by the claimant of the form that could be reasonably foreseen and thus claimed for in tort.

Decision/Outcome
The Court applied Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705 and found that whilst the claimant’s specific injuries were not foreseeable (due to the rarity of frostbite injuries in England), the kind of injury was foreseeable, namely injury resulting from exposure to extreme weather conditions. It was reaffirmed that in assessing harm, the precise injury need not have been anticipated, rather the defendant need only have been able to foresee an injury of that kind occurring.

Question 2

Egg Shell Skull Rule/Thin Skull Rule

Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. (1962)

Answer 2

Facts
The complainant was employed as a galvaniser of steel for the defendants, Leech Brain & Co Ltd. He had been working and operating a machine in the workplace, when a piece of molten metal burnt his lip, after he stepped out from behind the protective shield. Although the burn was treated, he developed cancer and died three years later. The complainant had a pre-cancerous condition, before the burn had taken place. When he died, his widow brought a claim against Leech Brain & Co Ltd under the Fatal Accidents Act.

Issues
The issues in this case concerned whether the employers could be liable for the full extent of the burn and cancer that had developed as a result or would a person’s predispositions matter in the award of damages.

Decision/Outcome
The defendants were held to be negligent and liable for damages to the complainant. The complainant burnt his lip as a result of the defendant’s negligence in the workplace. The employers are liable for all of the consequences of their negligence; thus, liable for the employee’s death. His predisposition to cancer did not matter, nor did the results of the injury. The question of liability was whether the defendant could reasonable foresee the injury. Lord Parker stated that the eggshell skull rule and taking the victim as you find them has always been the established law and this was not affected by the ruling in the Wagon Mound case.