Tort XXXIV - Remoteness III
In
Crossley v Rawlinson (1981) we once again examine the duty that is owed to a
rescuer. The defendant was driving a lorry and while he was on the road a
tarpaulin on the back of the lorry caught fire. At the time, the defendant was
about 100 meters away from an AA station and an AA patrolman caught sight of
the fire. The patrolman grabbed a fire extinguisher and rushed to the rescue
but he stepped in a pothole and fell and as a result sustained injuries. The
plaintiff sued.
The
court held that while it was foreseeable that the fire would prompt a rescuer
to come to the aid of the defendant it was unforeseeable that the rescuer would
step in a pothole, trip, fall and sustain some form of injury. The court held
that the damage was too remote and the plaintiff was unable to claim.
Would
the plaintiff have been successful if he’d brought an action against the
council whose duty it was to maintain the roads instead of the defendant? As
per the decisions in Stovin v Wise (1996) and Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan
Borough Council (2004) the chances are that the council would not have been
held liable but if the plaintiff had fallen into a manhole that was left open
because of the negligence of council workers then the plaintiff would most
likely be entitled to claim see Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963). Likewise, if the
plaintiff had stepped into a hole that was left uncovered after works were
done, the plaintiff would also be entitled to claim see Haley v London
Electricity Board (1965).
In
Ward v Cannock Chase DC (1985) the plaintiff owned a terraced house adjoining a
row of terraced houses and some land adjoining the terraced house. As a result
of a change in council policy the area was industrialized and many of the
terraced houses were vacated and left empty.
The
houses were subsequently broken into by vandals and the building materials that
were used to construct the houses like tiles were stolen and the condition of
the houses deteriorated with time.
Because
of continued vandalism the rear wall of the house adjoining the plaintiff’s
house collapsed causing damage to the roof of the plaintiff’s house. The
council re-housed the plaintiff without repairing the roof of the plaintiff’s
house and while the plaintiff was away, thieves broke into the plaintiff’s
house and stole items belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued and the
council admitted negligence.
The
question before the court was to determine the scope of the council’s
liability. The court held that it was foreseeable that the damage to the
adjoining house would cause some damage to the plaintiff’s house and therefore
the plaintiff was entitled to be compensated accordingly. However, the
plaintiff also had a responsibility to secure his chattels and belongings and
his failure to do so negated the council’s liability and hence the council was
not liable for the items that were stolen and was only liable for damage caused
to the house.
In
Meah v McCreamer (No. 1) (1985) the plaintiff suffered severe head injuries as
a result of a road accident caused by the plaintiff’s negligence that
subsequently resulted in a change of personality. He became a sexual predator
and was eventually convicted of sexually assaulting two women and causing
injury to a third. The plaintiff sued the defendant on the grounds that had it
not been for the defendant’s negligence the plaintiff would not have undergone
the personality change. On the contention that such personality changes were
not foreseeable the thin skull rule applied i.e. you take your victim as you
find them. The plaintiff was successful.
In
Meah v McCreamer (No. 2) (1986) two of the women that the plaintiff had
assaulted brought an action to recover from the plaintiff damages for the
injuries that they had suffered. The women were successful. The plaintiff
subsequently sought to recover the damages from the defendant but the court
denied the plaintiff’s claim citing the principle of ex turpi causa - where the
act is illegal, a legal remedy is not available.
In
Fitzgerald v Lane (1987) the plaintiff was walking down a pelican crossing when
the light for pedestrians turned red. He was hit by the first defendant’s car
and thrown on to the path of the second defendant’s car. The plaintiff suffered
severe injuries especially to the neck resulting in partial tetraplegia.
Because it was impossible to determine which of the defendants caused the
injury an action was brought against both defendants.
It
was held that because it was impossible to determine which of the defendants
had caused the injury, the defendants were jointly liable. The damages were
however reduced by one third in line with s1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory
Negligence) Act 1945 - Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of
his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim
in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the
person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof
shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having
regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage. Both the
defendants were required to pay one third each as compensation for the injury
suffered by the plaintiff.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment