Tort XXIV - Causation X
In
Langley v Dray (1998) the defendant was driving a stolen car and while he was
on the motorway, he was spotted by a policeman. The plaintiff, the policeman,
gave chase and the defendant stepped on the accelerator. A motorway speed chase
ensued. The policeman subsequently lost control of his car and there was an
accident. The plaintiff sued.
In
line with the decision with Haynes v Harwood (1935) the court found in favor of
the policeman. Let’s apply the duty, breach and causation requirements.
The
standard that is imposed on any driver is that of the reasonable and competent
driver or road-user and this standard applies even if the driver is a
learner-driver see Nettleship v Weston (1971) and it is regardless of whether
the defendant is ill or is struck by a sudden illness see Roberts v Ramsbottom
(1980). Hence there was a duty of care owed in that the defendant had to
exercise the care of a reasonable and competent driver.
The
test that is to be applied is the objective test or that of the man on the
Clapham omnibus see Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933). The question
that is to be asked is would a reasonable man have acted in the manner that the
defendant did under the circumstances? The answer would invariably be no and
therefore the defendant had breached his duty of care.
The
next question that is to be asked is would the plaintiff have been injured “but
for” the defendant’s act see Barnett v Chelsea Hospital Management Committee
(1969) and it can be said with some certainty that if it wasn’t for the
defendant’s negligent act, the plaintiff would not have been injured and
accordingly the defendant was held to be liable.
In
Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucester (1998), the case is with regards to the
notorious serial killer Fred West, who committed at least 12 murders from 1967
to 1987. The plaintiff, a volunteer, agreed to act as an appropriate adult (an
appropriate adult is someone who is responsible for safeguarding the rights of
children or the mentally vulnerable who have been detained by the police –
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). At the time she volunteered she had no
knowledge of who the defendant was or of the nature of the crimes he had
committed so it is fair to say that the plaintiff was caught off-guard.
All
the previous cases the plaintiff had worked on were in relation to youths who
had been detained by the police for some reason or other and she didn’t have
any experience with anyone who suffered from a mental illness. The plaintiff
accompanied the accused and spent a substantial amount of time with him
including following him to the crime scenes – which is something that can be
very distressful for most adults and it would take someone with strong
fortitude to not be affected by what she heard and saw. She subsequently
succumbed to a psychiatric illness and sued.
The
court in line with Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (1996) held
that the police owed the defendant a duty of care. The arguments for finding
for the plaintiff are more or less the same in both cases. The first question
that is to be asked is whether the defendants assumed responsibility for the
plaintiff? The answer is in the affirmative and the voluntary undertaking of
responsibility arose the moment the police put or placed the plaintiff in a
stressful situation or in a situation where she would most likely incur some
form of psychiatric illness or other.
It
was foreseeable that by being put in the position that she was, the plaintiff
would incur some form of injury – the court did not draw a distinction between
the type of injury, physical or psychiatric. All that was required was that
some form of injury was incurred.
Secondly,
while the court did not say so, for public policy reasons the plaintiff should
be awarded some form of compensation because appropriate adults play an
important role in ensuring that the rights of youth and the mentally vulnerable
are upheld.
In
Perrett v Collins (1998) the defendants built a plane and the plane crashed as
a result of which the plaintiff was injured. Prior to the plane being allowed
to fly it had to be approved by the relevant authority i.e. the inspector and
the certifying body. The plaintiff sued on the grounds that the inspector and
certifying body had been negligent in their assessment and had allowed a plane
that had not fully complied with the mandatory requirements to fly. The
plaintiff was successful.
It
was held the inspector and the certifying body were under a duty to ensure that
the stipulated requirements or regulations were complied with and it was foreseeable
that their negligence would lead to some sort of mishap or other.
Let’s
compare the decision in Perrett v Collins (1998) with that of Harris v Evans
(1998). It is clear that in both cases the defendants had a duty to perform
their roles or tasks as stipulated by law, and in the former the defendant was
found to be liable while in the latter the defendant was held to be not liable.
Yet again a lot depends on the facts but the result of not performing one’s
duties in accordance with the required standards may lead to a potentially
dangerous situation.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment