McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts [1969] 3 All ER 1621

KEY POINTS

• Personal injury involves harm caused by another's negligence or intentional act, leading to physical or psychological damage. It often requires compensation for medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

• An act is unreasonable if it involves unnecessary risk or ignores basic safety measures. If someone's actions are considered unreasonable, they may be held liable for resulting injuries or accidents.

• The chain of causation links a Defendant's action to the Plaintiff's injury. If an intervening event or unreasonable act breaks this chain, the defendant may not be liable for the subsequent injuries.

• Determining if an unreasonable act breaks the chain of causation depends on whether the act is a foreseeable response to an emergency.

  • If it is, the original negligence might still be the primary cause.

  • If not, it might break the link, limiting liability for the initial injury.

FACTS

• Abraham McKew (“Appellant”) sustained an injury during his employment, for which Holland & Hannen (“Respondents”) were found liable.

  • Following the initial injury, the Appellant experienced unexpected episodes of losing control of his left leg, causing it to collapse beneath him.

  • While leaving a flat with his wife, child, and brother-in-law, the Appellant's leg collapsed again as he attempted to descend steep stairs lacking a handrail.

  • His wife and brother-in-law were securing the door at the time.

  • In an attempt to prevent his daughter from falling down the stairs with him, the Appellant pushed her aside and tried to jump to land in a standing position, but he suffered a severe ankle fracture upon landing.

• Given the circumstances surrounding the initial injury and subsequent events, the question arises as to whether the Respondents are liable for the injuries sustained in the second accident.

JUDGEMENT

• The court held that the Appellant's attempt to descend a steep staircase without a handrail, without adult assistance, and with a history of his leg giving way was unreasonable.

  • This action broke the chain of causation, thereby absolving the Respondent from liability for his second injury.

  • Alternatively, as noted by Lord Guest, the Appellant's act of jumping did not represent reasonable human conduct.

• Lord Reid, with Lord Hodson and Viscount Dilhorne concurring, stated that if the chain of causation had not been broken by the Appellant's conduct leading to the emergency, he would not have been barred from seeking damages for acting wrongly in the emergency, such as jumping to avoid falling, unless his action was so unreasonable that no ordinary person would have done the same, even in a moment of crisis.

• Given these findings, the appeal was dismissed.

COMMENTARY

• This case highlights the legal concepts surrounding personal injury, negligence, and the chain of causation. It shows the responsibility of individuals and entities to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to others.

• Personal injury, resulting from negligence or intentional acts, often entails compensation for various damages.

  • Understanding what constitutes unreasonable behavior is essential, as it can determine liability for resulting injuries.

  • Moreover, the concept of the chain of causation elucidates the link between a Defendant's actions and the Plaintiff's injury.

  • If this chain is broken by an intervening event or unreasonable act, liability may shift.

• The court ruled that the Appellant's actions in attempting to descend the staircase without a handrail, despite prior leg issues, were unreasonable.

  • This act broke the chain of causation, relieving the Respondent of liability for the second injury.

  • The court also considered whether the Appellant's subsequent jump was reasonable, highlighting the importance of context in evaluating conduct during emergencies.

• The judgment clarifies legal principles concerning personal injury cases and demonstrates the nuanced considerations involved in determining liability and damages.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Plaintiff was mildly injured at work (his left leg became stiffer and weaker) due to Defendant’s negligence, and was later trying to climb a flight of flight of stairs.

• Due to the weakness of his left leg following the injury, he was about to fall and instead of falling jumped and broke his rights ankle.

• Plaintiff claimed damages for the ankle-break but HL refused.

• HL said Defendant was only responsible for the first accident. 

Lord Reid

• Defendant should have been more careful following his accident. If a person who is injured does act “reasonably and carefully” given the circumstances of the injury, but is still caused a second injury, then Plaintiff will be responsible for that too.

• If Defendant fails to so act (as here - the stair was steep with no hand rail and Defendant refused to wait for assistance), Defendant is not liable for the second accident.

A defender is not liable for a consequence of a kind which is not foreseeable.