Lagden v O'Connor
A defendant must take the claimant as he finds him, including his financial position, so a claimant who could not afford to hire a replacement car could recover the higher cost of credit hire.
Facts
Mr O'Connor negligently damaged Mr Lagden's car. Mr Lagden was unemployed and could not afford to hire a replacement car while his car was repaired. He used a credit hire company, which provided a car on credit and recovered the cost from the defendant's insurers, but charged more than ordinary hire. The insurers argued that he could only recover the cost of ordinary hire.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that Mr Lagden could recover the full cost of credit hire. Lord Hope said that the defendant must take his victim as he finds him, and this applies to the victim's lack of means as well as to his physical vulnerability. Since Mr Lagden could not afford ordinary hire, it was reasonable for him to use a credit hire company, and the additional cost was not too remote. The House departed from the earlier decision in Liesbosch Dredger v SS Edison, which had held that loss caused by the claimant's impecuniosity was not recoverable.
Related cases on remoteness and intervening acts
- Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, [2008] 1 AC 884
- Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837
- Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082
- Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349
- Lamb v Camden London Borough Council [1981] QB 625
- McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621
- The Oropesa [1943] P 32
- Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
