The defendants had advised on the construction of a plant. It later burned down, and the fire would have been less damaging but for materials used. The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract and negligence. The judge at first instance held that the plaintiff would not have accepted advice to spend more than was required by regulations. On appeal, the court held that he had not allowed for certain evidence which suggested that he may have listened, and that advice had not been given. The finding, and consequent assessment of contributory negligence was remitted for reconsideration. Contribution starts from a point at which two or more defendants have been held to have contributed by their own fault to the claimant’s injury. Their contributions are asssessed by gauging the relative causative potency of their respective faults and their comparative blameworthiness. Contributory negligence starts from where the defendant alone has been held to have caused the claimant’s injury by his fault. Three questions arise. Whether the claimant too was materially at fault. Second, if so, was his fault lay within the very risk which it was the defendant’s duty to guard him against. It is only if his fault was not within the causative reach of the defendant’s own neglect that the question of relative culpability arises.
Judges:
Brooke, Sedley, Dyson LJJ
Citations:
(2001) 76 CLR 1, [2001] EWCA Civ 1001, [2001] NPC 103
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sahib Foods Limited and Co-operative Insurance Society Limited v Paskin Kyriakides Sands (A Firm) TCC 3-Mar-2003
The claimants were lessees of premises, and the second claimants had contracted to purchase it. The premises burned down, and the claimants sought damages from the architect respondents. The fire began because of negligence by the claimant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Contract
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147598