Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Personal Injury - From: 1985 To: 1989

This page lists 27 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Air France v Saks [1985] 470 US 392
1985

O'Connor J
Personal Injury, Transport
(United States Supreme Court) The claimant suffered damage to and become permanently deaf in one ear as a result of pressurisation changes while the aircraft descended to land. The pressure system had worked normally. The airline said that the normal operation of a normal pressurisation system could not qualify as an article 17 accident. Held: The text of the Convention implies that, however the word "accident" is defined, it is the cause of the injury that must satisfy that definition rather than the occurrence of the injury alone. "We conclude that liability under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention arises only if a passenger's injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger. This definition should be flexibly applied after assessment of all the circumstances surrounding a passenger's injuries." and "But when the injury indisputably results from the passenger's own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft, it has not been caused by an accident, and Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention cannot apply." and "Any injury is the product of a chain of causes, and we require only that the passenger be able to prove that some link in the chain was an unusual or unexpected event external to the passenger."
Warsaw Convention 17
1 Citers



 
 Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority; HL 1985 - [1985] 1 WLR 685; [1985] 1 All ER 635
 
Breeden v Lampard 21 March 1985 (Unreported)
21 Mar 1985
CA
Oliver and Lloyd LJJ and Sir George Waller
Animals, Personal Injury
A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff's leg was injured when the defendant's horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too quickly, from behind, but there was no evidence to suggest that it was anything more than a normal 5-year old horse. Held: If liability is based on the possession of some abnormal characteristic known to the owner, then there is no sense in imposing liability when the animal is behaving in a perfectly normal way for all animals of that species in those circumstances, even though it would not be normal for those animals to behave in that way in other circumstances, for example, a bitch with pups or a horse kicking out when approached too suddenly, or too closely, from behind. The second limb of requirement (b) is 'refining what is meant by abnormality, not imposing a head of liability contrary to the main thrust of section 2(2)(b)'.
Oliver LJ said he could not believe Parliament intended to impose liability for what was essentially normal behaviour in all animals of the species, and "In relation to a characteristic which is not infrequently, although not invariably, found in domestic animals of a particular species in particular circumstances, so that the exhibition of that characteristic in those circumstances cannot be said to be abnormal in the species, it is still necessary in my judgment to show that the keeper knew of the existence of that characteristic in the particular animal in those particular circumstances. In my judgment it is not sufficient to say that the behaviour complained of is behaviour which, in the particular circumstances, is sufficiently common to put the keeper on notice that because the animal belongs to the relevant species there is a risk that in the particular circumstances it may prove (there having been no previous knowledge on the part of the keeper that the particular animal is prone so to behave) to be one of those animals which does in those circumstances behave in that way."
Animals Act 1971 2
1 Citers


 
Condon v Basi [1985] 2 All ER 253; [1985] 1 WLR 866; [1985] EWCA Civ 12
30 Apr 1985
CA
Sir John Donaldson MR, Stephen Brown LJ, Glidewell J
Personal Injury, Negligence
The parties were playing football. The defendant executed a late dangerous and foul tackle on the plaintiff breaking his leg. The defendant was sent off, and the plaintiff sued. Held: Those taking part in competitive sport still owed a duty of care to others taking part with them. The standard of care was objective and matched the circumstances. If a player fell below the normal and expected standards he should expect to be held liable. There was an obvious breach of the defendant's duty of care because he showed a reckless disregard of the plaintiff's safety and his conduct fell far below the standards which might reasonably be expected of anyone playing the game. "The standard is objective, but objective in a different set of circumstances. Thus there will of course be a higher degree of care required of a player in a First Division football match than of a player in a Fourth Division football match."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Francis v Bostock Unreported, November 8 1985
8 Nov 1985

Russell J
Personal Injury, Damages
The court considered the question of whether the court should award the additional costs of receiving investment advice to deal with an award of damages: "The award I make is compensatory. The whole object of the exercise upon which I have embarked by the progress of multipliers and multiplicands is to achieve a figure which compensates the plaintiff one and for all. The calculation of that figure, so far as future economic loss is concerned, seeks to achieve such a sum as will enable the plaintiff to recover her annual economic loss for the rest of her life, whilst in the process dissipating the fund. The result is what should be achieved by the award itself. Having acknowledged that the proposition however, the Court is not concerned with the disposal of the award once it is made. The plaintiff may spend it as she wishes. The defendant, in my judgment, should not be called upon to find further monies to assist the plaintiff in the proper administration of an award which, in itself, affords adequate compensation. Furthermore in my view the employment of financial advisers and the like is a consequence of my award and not a consequence of negligence of the defendant. The claim fails on the ground of remoteness."
1 Citers


 
Housecroft v Burnett [1986] 1 All E R 332
1986
CA
O’Connor LJ
Personal Injury, Damages
The appeal court should not interfere with an award under for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, unless it is manifestly too high or too low or it can be shown that the judge has erred in principle in relation to some element that goes to make up the award. The award of the cost of care is to provide for the reasonable and proper care of the plaintiff or claimant, and the court must consider whether it is sufficient to enable the plaintiff, among other things, to make reasonable recompense to the relative. So, in cases where the relative has given up gainful employment to look after the plaintiff, it is natural that the plaintiff would not wish the relative to lose out and the court would award sufficient to enable the plaintiff to achieve that result. The ceiling would be the commercial rate. The mother was providing care. The court recognises that part of the reasonable and proper cost of providing for the plaintiff’s needs is to enable her to make a present, or series of presents, to her mother.
1 Citers


 
Powell v National Coal Board Times, 28 May 1986
28 May 1986
CA
Parker LJ, Sir George Waller
Personal Injury, Limitation
Limitation operates as a defence, and therefore it is for he who sets it up to establish it, and prove that the claim was time barred. Once the initial limitation period had elapsed, it was for the plaintiff to assert that the date of knowledge under the section was later than accrual of the cause of action. If the proposed defendant wished to assert earlier knowledge either in the plaintiff himself or in his solicitors or by way of section 14(3) it was for him to do so. A party's solicitor was not an "expert" within the meaning of section 14(3)(b). That provision was directed to experts in the sense of "expert witnesses". "expert" advice in Section 14(3) meant advice which would establish by expert means the chain of causation of the damages suffered by the plaintiff. This was not a fact which could only be established by expert means.
Limitation Act 1980 11 14(3)(b)
1 Citers


 
Patterson v Ministry of Defence Unreported 29 July 1986; [1987] CLY 1194
29 Jul 1986
QBD
Simon Brown J
Personal Injury, Limitation, Damages
The plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos when working for the defendant. X-rays revealed development of pleural plaques, but these would remain asymptomatic. Held: Material damage sufficient to set time running was the same as damage necessary to complete a claimant's cause of action in negligence. The court rejected arguments that this was yet insufficient damage: "I have no doubt whatever that the Plaintiff has suffered material damage. It consists of the symptom – free pleural changes, the risk of pleural thickening deteriorating with the consequences I have indicated, the risk of mesothelioma developing and the understandable worry attendant upon these matters." A provisional award was made: "I therefore have to value in combination (a) the present symptom-free pleural changes; (b) the 5%-odd risk of further diffuse changes developing so as to aggravate the plaintiff's breathlessness, and (c) the anxiety which the plaintiff entirely understandably, and in my judgment reasonably, has hitherto suffered, in particular over the last two years, and to a far more limited degree, the worry he may still experience in the future, even though, as I have sought to emphasize, these future risks are really very small. Doing my best to arrive at a figure which accords reasonably with the scale established by Church and Sykes, both now 2 years old, and with my own views upon the particular facts of the instant case, I assess such damages in the sum of £1,250. There will accordingly be judgment for the plaintiff for damages in that sum assessed on the assumption that the plaintiff will not develop mesothelioma at any future stage."
"[S]ymptom-free pleural changes" could not, of themselves, constitute significant damage for the purpose of founding a cause of action but "In deciding whether material damage has been caused it is appropriate to have regard not merely to actual physical manifestation of injury, but also to whatever risks consequent upon the original injury may exist of future symptoms becoming manifest"
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Webb; CA 1987 - [1987] QB 1974

 
 Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd; CA 1987 - [1987] 1 WLR 336
 
Thompson v T Lohan (Plant Hire) Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 649; [1987] 2 All ER 631
1987
CA

Contract, Personal Injury
The plaintiff's husband had been killed as the result of the driver's negligence in operating an excavator which had been hired by the second defendants for work at their quarry. The contract was subject to the CPA (Contractors' Plant Association conditions of hire) terms which provided that drivers be regarded as the servants or agents of the hirer who, alone, should be responsible for all claims arising in connection with the operation of the plant. Held: Terms and conditions may be incorporated by reference to specific terms and conditions in common use in the relevant industry. Condition 8 was not caught by UCTA 1977 and was effective to transfer liability to the hirers. Section 2(1) had no effect because liability was not excluded towards the victim of the negligent act, Mr Thompson. It only excluded liability towards T Lohan themselves. It transferred liability.
Fox LJ said: "As to the position of the two individuals principally concerned, Mr. Pinder was the quarry manager of the third party, and Mr. Danby was a director of Lohan. Mr. Pinder had previously hired from Lohan and knew that Lohan traded on the C.P.A. model terms - and the judge so found.", "As to the position of the two individuals principally concerned, Mr. Pinder was the quarry manager of the third party, and Mr. Danby was a director of Lohan. Mr. Pinder had previously hired from Lohan and knew that Lohan traded on the C.P.A. model terms - and the judge so found." and of the CPA agreement: "The purpose of clause 8 was that, as between Lohan and the third party, Mr Hill should be regarded as the servant of the third party, who would be liable for his negligence accordingly. In my view, therefore, clause 8 is effective, at common law, as between the parties according to its tenor."
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

 
Bryce v Swan Hunter Group plc [1988] 1 All ER 659; [1987] 2 Lloyds Rep 426
1987


Negligence, Personal Injury
The court considered the difficulties of establishing liability in negligence or breach of statutory duty against an employer for exposure to asbestos giving rise to mesothelioma.
1 Citers


 
Kay's Tutor v Ayrshire and Arran Health Board [1987] UKHL 17; [1987] 2 All ER 417; 1987 SC (HL) 145; 1987 SLT 577
14 May 1987
HL

Scotland, Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Attia v British Gas [1988] 1 QB 304; [1987] EWCA Civ 8; [1987] 3 All ER 455
26 Jun 1987
CA
Bingham LJ
Personal Injury
The defendant set the plaintiff's house on fire when installing central heating. She claimed damages for the shock she suffered on hearing of the fire. Held: The plaintiff could recover damages for psychiatric injury she suffered when the house was burnt down so long as such illness was foreseeable and therefore not too remote. The court considered where to draw a line between psychiatric and physical harm. The court referred to mental or emotional trauma "which precipitated the plaintiff's psychiatric damage", and in his own word, he defined psychiatric evidence as "comprehending all relevant forms of mental illness, neuroses and personality change".
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 1 WLR 1553; [1987] UKHL 14
29 Oct 1987
HL
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Goff of Chieveley
Negligence, Personal Injury
The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury. A council had engaged a competent contractor to carry out demolition works. Unknown to the council, the contractor sub-contracted the works to two brothers who worked in a highly dangerous manner. One of the brothers employed the plaintiff, Mr Ferguson, to help them, and Mr Ferguson was injured when part of the building collapsed. Held: The council was not liable. Assuming section 2 applied, the council was not liable under 2(4) having engaged a contractor it had reasonable grounds for regarding as competent, and there was no evidence to support any inference that the council or its responsible officers knew or ought to have known that its contractor was likely to contravene the prohibition on sub-contracting. There was no difficulty in finding the plaintiff to be licensee of one person and at the same time a trespasser as against the defendant,
Lord Keith: "It may therefore be inferred that an occupier might, in certain circumstances, be liable for something done or omitted to be done on his premises by an independent contractor if he did not take reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and that the work was being properly done. It would not ordinarily be reasonable to expect an occupier of premises having engaged a contractor whom he has reasonable grounds for regarding as competent, to supervise the contractor’s activities in order to ensure that he was discharging his duty to his employees to observe a safe system of work. In special circumstances, on the other hand, where the occupier knows or has reason to suspect that the contractor is using an unsafe system of work, it might well be reasonable for the occupier to take steps to see that the system was made safe." and "It is possible to envisage circumstances in which an occupier of premises engaging the services of an independent contractor to carry out work on his premises may, as a result of his state of knowledge and opportunities of supervision, render himself liable to an employee of the contractor who is injured as a result of the defective system of work adopted by the employer. But I incline to think that his liability in such case would be rather that of joint tortfeasor that of an occupier."
Occupiers Liability Act 1957 2(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Keenen v Miller Insulation and Engineering Ltd Unreported, 8 December 1987
8 Dec 1987

Piers Ashworth QC
Limitation, Personal Injury
The claimant's cause of action for lung fibrosis did not arise at the time he was exposed to asbestos between August 1952 and May 1953 because at that stage he had not suffered physical injury by May 1953. Basing himself on the evidence of Dr Rudd the court held that for a long time after exposure the defence mechanisms of the body held their own and only became exhausted after a period of equilibrium which lasted well after 4th June 1954, the relevant date for limitation.
1 Citers



 
 Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd; HL 1988 - [1988] AC 514
 
Spittle v Bunney [1988] 1 WLR 847; [1988] 3 All ER 1031; [1988] EWCA Civ 16; [1988] 1 WLR 847
1988
CA
Croom-Johnston LJ
Personal Injury, Damages
The plaintiff made a claim in damages for the loss of her mother's services. Held: In assessing a FAA claim on behalf of a child a judge, directing himself as he would a jury, was, in valuing the mothers services to take into account the change in nature of a mother's services as the child grew older and that while the yardstick of a nanny's wage could be used in respect of the early years of a child's life it became less appropriate as the child got older: "The judge adopted the "nanny" formula. Figures were provided of the wage which a commercially hired nanny could have expected to receive "net in-hand" each week. By "net in-hand" was meant the sum actually receivable by the nanny after she had paid her tax and NI contributions. -- The judge did not accede to a submission made on behalf of the plaintiffs that the "net in-hand" figure was too low and the cost of the nanny should in effect be doubled by charging her gross wages and NI contribution and something for her food. In this he must have been right, because there never was going to be a nanny and such items of expenditure will never have been incurred by anybody at all."
Fatal Accidents Act 1846 2 - Law Reform (Miscellaneous Previsions) Act 1934
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Powney v Coxage Times, 08 March 1988
8 Mar 1988
QBD
Schiemann J
Damages, Litigation Practice, Personal Injury
The court heard a dispute as to whether, when the Motor Insurers' Bureau had been joined as a defendant to an action, it was possible to obtain an interim payment under the unamended form of the rules. Held: It was not possible for such an interim payment to be made in those circumstances.
1 Citers


 
Coward v Comex Houlder Diving Limited [1988] EWCA Civ 18
18 Jul 1988
CA
Ralph Gibson, Butler-Sloss LJJ, Sir edward Eveleigh
Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hodgson v Trapp; HL 10-Nov-1988 - [1989] AC 807; [1988] UKHL 9
 
Guidera v NEI Projects (India) Ltd Unreported, 17 November 1988
17 Nov 1988

McCullough J
Personal Injury, Limitation
The plaintiff was exposed to asbestos in 1952 and 1953 and later diagnosed with asbestosis. Held: He had suffered no injury by 4th June 1954 because physical injury would not occur for at least 5 (and more likely 10 – 20) years after exposure. Destruction of cells by macrophages or neurophils was not damage or injury for the purpose of creating a cause of action since destruction of cells in this way was a natural incident of daily life. This was so even on the basis that the claimant would, inevitably, suffer from asbestosis once exposure had begun.
1 Citers



 
 Roberts v Johnstone; CA 1989 - [1989] 1 QB 878

 
 Nurse v Morganite Crucible Ltd; HL 1989 - [1989] AC 692; [1989] 1 All ER 113
 
White v Glass Times, 18 February 1989; Transcript No 140 of 1989
17 Feb 1989
CA
Kerr LJ
Personal Injury, Limitation
The plaintiff had sued his club under its name, but it was an unincorporated association, and the action was stricken out as improperly constituted. The first writ issued within the primary limitation period but was ineffective. The defendant claimed limitation under Walkley in defence of the second action. Held: The Walkley principle does not apply to defeat in limine a second action, notwithstanding that the defect was capable of being cured by substituting the names of representative members. The plaintiff could rely on section 33: "There was no action in being against the present defendants at the time when the limitation period expired or thereafter when the application under section 33 was made. … But it seems to me that the plaintiff is now prejudiced by section 11, since he cannot bring this first properly constituted action unless he can avail himself of section 33. … In my view, the position is now that he is prejudiced by section 11 and is entitled to rely on section 33. … This is not a case of a mere repetition of an identical action which has been instituted during the limitation period. In the present case the action which had started during the limitation period was defective and invalid and not capable of resurrection… The Court is therefore entitled to conclude that the provisions of section 11 prejudiced the plaintiff in relation to the present action. Accordingly I would dismiss this appeal and allow this action to proceed by reason of section 33."
Limitation Act 1980
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Reid v Rush and Tompkins Group Plc [1989] EWCA Civ 10; [1990]1 WLR 212; (1989) 27 Con LR 4; [1989] 2 Lloyd's Rep 167; [1990] RTR 144; [1989] IRLR 265; [1990] ICR 61; [1989] 3 All ER 228
22 Mar 1989
CA
May, Neill, Ralph Gibson LJJ
Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
McCaul v Elias Wild Unreported, 14 September 1989
14 Sep 1989

McNeill J
Personal Injury, Limitation
The plaintiff who had suffered pleural thickening from inhalation of asbestos fibres in 1943 – 1950 suffered no actionable injury until about 1985, when he first experienced breathlessness.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.