Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd
A claimant's unwise conduct, which was not wholly unreasonable, did not break the chain of causation, but reduced his damages for contributory negligence.
Facts
Mr Spencer injured his knee at work, through his employer's negligence, and his leg was later amputated as a result. He was fitted with a prosthetic leg. On one occasion, while not wearing the prosthesis and not using his walking sticks, he stopped to fill his car with petrol and tripped, suffering further injuries that left him in a wheelchair. The employers argued that his conduct broke the chain of causation.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the employer was liable for the further injury, but that Mr Spencer's damages for it should be reduced by a third for contributory negligence. Sedley LJ said that the question is one of fairness, and that the claimant's conduct would break the chain of causation only if it was so unreasonable that it eclipsed the defendant's wrongdoing. Mr Spencer had acted unwisely, but not so unreasonably as to break the chain.
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
- Lagden v O'Connor [2003] UKHL 64, [2004] 1 AC 1067
- 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
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.
