Weld-Blundell -v- Stephens; HL 1920

References: [1920] AC 956
Coram: Lord Sumner
Lord Sumner said: ‘In general, even though A is in fault, he is not responsible for injury to C which B, a stranger to him, deliberately chooses to do. Though A may have given the occasion for B’s mischievous activity, B then becomes a new and independent cause.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stansbie-v- Troman CA ([1948] 2 KB 48)
    A decorator working alone in a house went out to buy wallpaper and left the front door unlocked. He was held liable for the loss caused by a thief who entered while he was away. For the purpose of attributing liability to the thief (e.g. in a . .
  • Cited – Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd -v- National Rivers Authority HL (Gazette 26-Feb-98, Times 09-Feb-98, Gazette 25-Mar-98, House of Lords, Bailii, [1998] 2 WLR 350, [1998] UKHL 5, [1999] 2 AC 22, [1998] 1 All ER 481)
    A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .

Leave a Reply