The Law of Negligence - Case Study Example

The Law of Negligence In Gray v. Thames Trains Ltd, the claimant Gray had committed manslaughter. He had been injured due to the negligence of the Thames Trains Ltd, which resulted in severe depression. This depression had actuated him to fatally stab a stranger, without any provocation (Gray v Thames Trains Ltd and another, 2008 ). In the trial court Gray sued the defendants for damages in negligence. The railway company, while conceding that they had been negligent, denied liability in respect of the financial loss undergone by Gray, subsequent to the manslaughter. The defendants contended that providing compensation for the period after the manslaughter would be tantamount to a violation of public policy, especially the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which holds that an offender should not be permitted to derive advantage from illegal behaviour. The trial court accepted this contention and ruled that the claimant being responsible for his deeds, it would not countenance any claim for compensation that was on the basis of a criminal offence. Accordingly, the court disallowed any recovery for damages, subsequent to the manslaughter. With this decision, the court reiterated the extant judicial stance that no compensation would be granted in cases, involving a claim that relied on a criminal act. This principle was being applied by the courts, even if the defendant had failed to raise it (Law Reports - Criminal blames rail firm. Gray v Thames Trains and Network Rail Infrastructure - Queens Bench Division, 2007). In this case, the possibility existed to contend that as manslaughter, under Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 was fault, Gray’s diminished earnings were in part due to the tort and in part due to his criminal act (Section 1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 ). This would have had the effect of bringing about a demarcation between the responsibilities of the claimant and the defendants and thereby restrict compensation to the extent to which the defendants were truly responsible. Furthermore, such separation would have the effect of disentangling the claimant’s claim for compensation and the manslaughter committed by him (Killer can sue tortfeasor over loss of earnings, 2008). In the Appellate Court, the defendants argued that compensation should not be awarded to Gray, on the basis of the legal tenet ex turpi cause or that an evil cause should not permit a right of action to emerge from it. In this context, Gray’s counsel, Scrivener contended that although the latter was not permitted by law to seek compensation for his detention in a mental asylum, all the same the defendant was well within his rights to claim compensation for the earnings lost by him on this account. As such no public policy reason could be adduced that disallowed such a claim (Allen, 2008). His counsel argued in the High Court that the homicide resulted from the depression caused by the rail crash. He went on to state that Gray had been reduced to a bundle of psychiatric problems, due to the train crash. Gray had been singularly unsuccessful in effectively dealing with the trauma, which actuated him to kill the offending pedestrian, in a moment of uncontrollable rage. He further contended that his client’s mental condition had deteriorated to such an extent that he had become prone to fits of uncontrollable rage, violence, loss of sense of proportion and a failure to behave in a responsible manner (Gibb, 2007). The claim was that there was to be adequate compensation for the loss in past and future earnings that would result from the detention, due to negligence on the part of the defendants. To this the rail companies argued that Gray was precluded from receiving such compensation, on the basis of the principle of ex turpi causa (Gibb, 2007). If a claimant commits manslaughter due to depression, ensuing from the defendant’s negligence; then such a claimant can be compensated for the amount of earnings lost, provided his criminal act was not inextricably connected to his claim. It was open to the court to rule on the basis of the Law Reform Act that manslaughter was a fault (Section 1(1), Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 ). Hence, courts could hold that the loss in earnings had been caused to some extent by the criminal act and to some extent by the tort (Killer can sue tortfeasor over loss of earnings, 2008). The defendants had in principle admitted that they were responsible for his losses up to the date of the stabbing. However, they submitted that from then onwards, the claimant should not be permitted to recover damages on the basis of ex turpi causa non oritur actio; or the legal principle that a person who knowingly engages in an illegal activity may not claim damages arising out of that activity. The Court of Appeal found that the facts that led to the claim were not inextricably linked to the crime and so the claimants cause of action could not be said to have arisen directly from the manslaughter. He was not prevented from claiming damages for loss of earnings after he committed the crime, on the grounds of public policy (Law Reports - Case shows PTSD recognition.; Gray v Thames Trains and Network Rail Infrastructure , 2008). Public policy cannot set aside a negligence claim, until and unless the claimant’s criminal behaviour and his claim are inseparable. Such a claimant can obtain compensation for his loss in earnings, consequent to having committed manslaughter; if his claim and his criminal act are not inextricably linked (Denny). In Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd, an employee of the IBC Vehicles Ltd was injured due to the negligence of the employer. This injury caused him such depression that he committed suicide. His wife claimed damages from the employer for the psychological and physical injuries suffered by her late husband. The trial court granted her plea for damages. The employer accepted that his negligence had caused Corr severe depression. However, the employer was unwilling to accept that his negligence could reasonably be expected to compel Corr to commit suicide. This was the basis of the appeal made to the House of Lords (Corr v Ibc Vehicles Limited, 2008). Their Lordships opined that it was not necessary for a tortfeasor to estimate the exact form of the damage that the tortfeasor reasonably expected to occur. Depression of extreme severity could on occasion result in abnormal and impulsive acts, which could not be foreseen reasonably. However, suicide was an act that could not be regarded in this manner. Accordingly, it would be inequitable to make a tortfeasor liable for damage resulting from some unrelated cause for which he was not responsible. It was therefore, essential to determine, in the light of the 1976 Act, whether IBC’s breach of duty had resulted in the suicide (Section 1(1) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976). The House of Lords held that Corr had committed suicide due to severe depression resulting from the IBC Vehicles Ltd’s negligence. Accordingly, the compensation claimed by his widow was not too remote; hence, her claim was upheld (Damages for loss caused by husbands suicide, 2008). In negligence cases, causation constitutes the connection in the legal reasoning, which exists between a breach of duty and damage. The various tests employed in attempting to establish causation, seek to describe and limit the conditions of an occurrence that is tantamount to a breach of duty and which can be seen as the basis of the damage caused to the claimant. In order to establish the proof of causation in tort, the but for test is employed. This constitutes the benchmark or automatically resorted to test. A claimant who succeeds in proving that but for the breach of duty by the defendant, he would not have been injured is deemed to have provided sufficient proof to establish the causation of that injury. If the claimant is unable to do so, then the claim will generally fail, because of the absence of proof of causation. However, such an outcome is rare, because in most of the cases, cause and effect are so closely intertwined that the but for test results in the right conclusion (Burton & Mead, 2007. P. 21). In negligence cases it had been the practice to differentiate between injury caused to the body and psychiatric damage. All this changed with the House of Lords decision in Page v Smith, the purport of which was that an injury to the body and the related psychiatric damage were inseparable (Page v Smith, 1996). The success of the defence essentially depends on the unlawful acts being related to the damage for which a claim is being made, and this renders causation very important. Hence, it is first and foremost crucial to demonstrate a connection between the tort and the illegal act. Previously, the courts relied on the principle of ex turpi, while awarding damages. For instance, in Euro – Drain Ltd v Bathurst, it was held that the ex turpi defence is based on the public policy principle that a claimant guilty of illegal or immoral conduct will not be succoured by the courts (Euro - Drain Ltd v Bathurst, 1998). The idea behind this ruling was to preclude assistance to a claimant, if such aid offended the public conscience, in order to deter illegal activities. Gradually, the public policy principle had been marginalized and the discretionary power of the courts assumed great significance. This policy was disparaged in Tinsley v Milligan, by the House of Lords. One of the presiding Law Lords dismissed the public conscience test as being tantamount to an admission by the court that it had the freedom to grant or refuse relief. His Lordship also contended that this discretionary power was the underlying principle, behind the multifarious reasons proffered by the courts, while denying relief to a claimant on grounds of illegality. As such, the House of Lords ruled that this test was inappropriate and irrelevant in this case (Tinsley v Milligan, 1993). The Court of Appeal held that the ex turpi causa axiom was inapplicable in this case, as it would not prevent the plaintiff from claiming the loss of earnings. This was because his claim was inseparable from the manslaughter committed by him. While assessing damages, it is important to consider whether the loss of earnings is inextricably linked with the manslaughter committed by the plaintiff. If such claim had an inextricable link with that illegal act, then the court would not grant his claim of loss of earnings. In Gray v Thames Trains Ltd, the Court could not find any such inextricable link between the claimant’s claim for loss of earnings and the act of manslaughter. It was argued that the claimant was under an obligation to prove causation for the loss of his earnings. The defendant was also required to establish that the murder had necessarily served to break the process of causation. Therefore, the evidential burden lay on the defendant. There was indisputable psychiatric proof that the claimant’s act ensued from the defendants’ negligence. Hence, the actual reason behind the loss was the Post Trauma Stress Disorder caused by the tort. Therefore, if the act of manslaughter did not bring about a break in the chain of causation that existed between the lost earnings and the tort, then the loss in earnings could be separated from the unlawful act. The principle of ex turpi causa is inapplicable under such circumstances. A public policy does not rescind a claim for damages. In order to quash a claim, it has to be proved that the claim was inextricably linked with the immoral or illegal conduct of the claimant. This decision established that the defendants would be held responsible for the implications of the psychological trauma caused by them to the claimant; even if its consequence had been manslaughter or suicide. The widening of the notion of reasonable foreseeability and causation were affirmed by this decision. List of References Allen, N. (2008, June 26). Rail crash killer wins legal fight to seek compensation. The Daily Telegraph (LONDON) , p. 8. Burton, F., & Mead, P. (2007. P. 21). Piba Personal Injuries Handbook . Jordans. Corr v Ibc Vehicles Limited, UKHL 13 (House of Lords February 27, 2008). Damages for loss caused by husbands suicide. (2008, February 28). The Times (London) , p. 72. Denny, S. (n.d.). Negligence. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from The WLR Daily: http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2008/CACiv/jun1.2.htm Euro - Drain Ltd v Bathurst, 2 All ER 23 (1998). Gibb, F. (2007, June 26). Rail crash trauma made me a killer. The Times (London) , p. 19. Gray v Thames Trains Ltd and another, EWCA Civ 713 (June 25, 2008 ). Killer can sue tortfeasor over loss of earnings. (2008, July 9). The Times (London) , p. 53. Law Reports - Case shows PTSD recognition.; Gray v Thames Trains and Network Rail Infrastructure . (2008, August 21 ). Post Magazine , p. 25. Law Reports - Criminal blames rail firm. Gray v Thames Trains and Network Rail Infrastructure - Queens Bench Division. (2007, August 16). Post Magazine , p. 43. Page v Smith, AC 155 (House of Lords 1996). Section 1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 . (n.d.). Section 1(1) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. (n.d.). Section 1(1), Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 . (n.d.). Tinsley v Milligan, 3 WLR 126 (House of Lords 1993). Read More