Tort XVII - Causation III
In
Chadwick v British Railways Board (1967), the case concerns the duty of care
that is owed to rescue workers and the Lewisham train disaster which left 90
people dead and nearly 200 others injured.
On
the 4th of December 1957 two trains collided at St. Johns Railway Station just
outside Lewisham. The collision derailed one of the trains that subsequently
fell on carriages ferrying evening rush hour commuters. The plaintiff a
volunteer worked tirelessly as a rescuer to try and safe as many passengers as possible
and as a result suffered from shock and anxiety attacks and was forced to seek
treatment. An action was brought in court for damages.
While
the case is more relevant with regards or reference to rescue workers, by
applying the normal criteria to establish duty and breach we can come to the
conclusion that the defendants owed the plaintiff a duty of care.
A
duty of care is owed not only to persons who are directly affected by an
incident or an accident but also to third parties who perceive the incident or
accident or witnessed its aftermath with their own senses, unaided by
electronic devices like television sets, computers and mobile phones with
access to the internet, in line with Bourhill v Young (1943) and the series of
cases that followed.
The
question that is to be asked in this instance is would the defendant have
suffered from nervous shock, anxiety attacks or any other form of psychiatric
illness but for the defendants’ actions or omissions? The answer in short would
be no. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
It
is foreseeable that any disaster would inevitably prompt rescue workers to rush
to the scene and it is likely that some of them may develop some form of an
illness as a result of witnessing the aftermath of the incident or accident.
In
Baker v Willoughby (1970) the plaintiff suffered serious injuries when the
defendant ran into him with his car and was subsequently forced to give up his
job and to take on another lower paying job because he could not continue working
in the first job as a result of the injuries he had sustained. While he was in
his second job, two robbers entered his workplace; he was working in a scrap
yard and shot the plaintiff in the injured leg.
As
a result, the plaintiff had to have his leg amputated. While the plaintiff was
trying to claim for the first injury the defendant argued that since the
plaintiff had lost his leg, the defendant should not be held liable and that
the subsequent injury had precluded the earlier injury. The court rejected the
defendant’s argument and held that the defendant was liable for the injury that
had been caused by the accident, the loss of income and any other costs that
resulted directly from the accident.
The
robbers if they were ever caught were liable for the subsequent injury or the
injury that was caused by the shooting. The plaintiff’s misfortunate does not
negate the primary defendant’s liability.
In
Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd (1976) the plaintiff was walking down the aisle of a
Tesco store shopping when she stepped on some spilled yogurt and subsequently
slipped and fell. The plaintiff was injured as a result of the accident and
brought an action against Tesco for negligence. The court held that Tesco owed
its customers a duty of care and it had breached that duty by failing to ensure
that the floors were kept clean at all times. The plaintiff’s injury was the
result of stepping on the spilled yogurt or the plaintiff would not have been
injured but for the spilled yogurt and thus the defendant was held to be liable.
In
Jobling v Associated Dairies (1981) the plaintiff was a butcher and while he
was working he slipped and fell because of his employer’s negligence. The fall
resulted in a serious back injury and his earning capacity was reduced
substantially. The defendant subsequently developed a spinal disease (4 years
later) that was independent of the earlier injury i.e. an injury that was not
connected with the earlier injury, following which he was no longer able to
work or suffered from a disability that prohibited him from working.
The
court in line with Baker v Willoughby (1970) held that the plaintiff was
entitled to claim for the first injury i.e. the injury that was caused by the
employer but was not allowed to claim for the second injury or the subsequent
or consequent independent injury that occurred 4 years later.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment