Gray v Thames Trains

Question 1

judgement date

Answer 1

2009

Question 2

which court

Answer 2

house of lords

Question 3

held

Answer 3

the claimant who had committed manslaughter as a result of psychological problems caused by the negligence of a third party was therefore precluded from recovering from that third party general damages and loss of earnings flowing from his crime.
Based of principle of ex turpi cause

Question 4

what is ex turpi causa

Answer 4

principle which precludes a person from recovering compensation either for losses suffered in consequence of his own criminal act or for damage that was the consequence of a sentence imposed on him for a criminal act.

Question 5

facts of the case

Answer 5

• G was passenger on a train in the Ladbroke Grove rail crash
• The train was operated by T, accident caused by T’s negligence.
• G only had minor physical injuries but suffered PTSD
• While receiving treatment & taking medication for PTSD, G stabbed to death a pedestrian who had stepped into the path of his car.
• pleaded guilty to manslaughter –> diminished responsibility caused by PTSD
• sentenced to be detained in hospital.
• action for negligence against T
• G wanted general damages for conviction, detention, feelings of guilt and remorse, and damage to his reputation.
• G wanted special damages for loss of earnings until the date of trial and continuing
• G sought immunity from any claims which might be brought by dependants of his victim.

Question 6

outcome of trial

Answer 6

The trial judge decided that a rule of law based on public policy precluded a person from recovering, in consequence of his own criminal act, both general and special damages.
The Court of Appeal held that it was bound by the decision in Clunis v Camden and Islington HA [1998] Q.B. 978, [1997] 12 WLUK 124 to find that recovery of general damages was precluded, while recovery of loss of earnings was not.