#17354 - Remoteness - GDL Tort Law

Rogers: ‘any student who expects a scientific analysis of … [“remoteness”] will be grievously disappointed’.

Novus Actus Interveniens of a Third Party

• Lamb v Camden LBC [1981] – Council negligently fractured pipe under C’s flat. This caused extensive damage and the property had to be vacated. A year later squatter moved in and caused more damage.

  • Held LA not liable for damage caused by squatters. This was a NAI.

  • Denning: As a matter of policy was the responsibility of the owner of the house to ensure it was secure while unoccupied and insure it against damage.

  • Watkins LJ: Judges should take robust approach, if they have a instinct that the damage is too remote they should listen to that instinct.

• Knightly v Johns [1982] – John’s negligent driving caused car to overturn in tunnel. Senior officer negligently instructed two officers on motorcycles to drive on wrong side of road to the other end of the tunnel and close it off. One of the officers was involved in a crash and died.

  • Held the Senior Officer’s negligence was a NAI. Claimant was entitled to full damages from the senior officer

  • CA: An act is more likely to break the chain than an omission

  • Negligent conduct is more likely to break the chain than non-negligent conduct.

• Scott v Shepherd (1773) – D1 threw a squib (lit firework) into market place. Two others threw it on/away from themselves before it landed near C. D2 and D3 not laible as acting in heat of the moment.

  • Actions in the heat of the moment do not break the chain.

• Robinson v Post Office (1974) – Slipped on ladder. Taken to hospital and given tetnus jab. Developed brain damage. Thin skull rule applied and original defendant guilty.

  • Medical treatment msut be palpably wrong to break the chain.

Novus Actus Interveniens of Claimant

• McKew v Holland (1969) – Scotland – C strained his back and hips and his leg was prone to giving way without any warning after an accident at work. Attempted to walk down steps without daughters help. Felt leg give way and jumped to the bottom. Permanently disabled.

  • Held C’s actions were unreasonable and therefore amounted to a NAI.

• Wieland v Cyril [1969] – claimant injured in road accident. Given neck brace. Sought son’s help to get her home safely. Son leaved nearby. Fell down stairs at Son’s office as could not see due to neck brace.

  • Court of Appeal held that the claimant behaved reasonably by seeking the help of an adult therefore did not break the chain of causation.

• Clay v TUI UK [2018] – Clay and family stuck on balcony due to defective lock. Claimant tried to climb to neighbouring balcony, fell and fractured skull. Held actions were sufficiently unreasonable to break chain of causation.

  • Moylan LJ dissented arguing it was reasonably foreseeable that Mr Clay might sustain injury as a result of being trapped on the balcony and attempting to escape.

• Spencer v Wincanton [2009] – D’s negligence resulted in minor injury to Claimant’s leg. Over the course of three years the leg got worse and eventually the claimant required amputation.

  • After amputation claimant was in a hurry, drove to a self-service petrol station. Got out of car without prosthetic or walking stick. Tripped over a man hole cover and was seriously injured and ended up paralysed, confined to a wheelchair.

  • CA held there was no break in chain of causation – no unreasonable conduct and defendants were liable for injury, amputation and paralysis (reduced on contributory negligence)

  • Sedley LJ: “a succession of consequences which in fact and in logic is infinite will be halted by the law when it becomes unfair to let it continue.”

• Emeh v Kensington & Chelsea AHA [1984] – elected to sterilise herself after three children. This failed, but D did not want an abortion but financial compensation. Held failure to abort was a NAI.

• Reeves v MPC [1999] - Martin Lynch committed suicide whilst in a police cell. Have attempted to do so before that day and Dr having warned of suicide risk.

  • HoL held suicide does not generally breack chain of causarion. The act of suicide was the very thing that the police were under a duty to prevent to treat this as a novus actus interveniens would deprive the duty of any substance.

Novus Actus Interveniens of Claimant where Tort interferes with mental stability

• Meah v McCreamer [1985] – C was a non-violent criminal. D crashed car negligently injuring C’s head. C violently attacked two women claiming he was mentally damaged by the crash.

  • Held D was liable for the life imprisonment of C – loss of earning and liberty. C’s actions many not have been reasonable but they were foreseeable.

• Meah v McCreamer (No 2) [1986] - the women who he had attacked sued Meah knowing that he now had money.

  • Meah sued driver again for compensation for the compensation he had to pay out to his victims. Court held that the damage was too remote here – the claimant broke the chain of causation.

  • Uneasy to understand the consistency here. Clarified in:

• Gray v Thames Trains [2009] - Train crashed causing PTSD changing the claimants personality. He went on to kill someone, reduced on DR to manslaughter. Sued the respondents for negligence, claiming damages for his conviction, loss of earning, loss of liberty, harm to his reputation, and emotional suffering (feelings of guilt and remorse).

  • HoL overruled Meah. Ex turpi causa applied. A person could not recover damages that resulted from of a sentence imposed on him for a criminal act.

  • Leading case: you cannot have one person responsible for one thing and going to jail and receiving compensation from someone else for it.

• Corr v IBC [2008] - Claimant suffered PTSD after work accident, depression and subsequently committed suicide.

  • Court held that when you cause someone to suffer depression because of your negligence you cannot argue that their suicide breaks the chain of causation.

  • Bingham held severe depression was a foreseeable consequence of the breach.

Foreseeable Type of Harm: C must establish that the type of harm was reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the defendant’s negligence.

• The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] – D negligently allowed oil from their ship into the harbor. Sparks from works on neighboring ship ignited the oil and a large part of the harbor went up in flames.

  • PC held that D’s were only liable for the pollution damage. The fire damage was a type of damage that was held not to be reasonably foreseeable therefore claimants could not receive compensation.

• This is generally done on an inconsistent case by case basis.

• Treamin v Pike [1969] – C worked on farm and contracted Weil’s disease from touching...