Physical damage in negligence

Cambridge Law Journal

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 189-208

  Witting, Christian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011454474     PISSN: 00081973     EISSN: 14692139     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0008197302001587     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 A.C. 455, 492 (Lord Steyn).
2. Perrett v. Collins [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 255, 261
3. (Hobhouse L.J.); contra Marc Rich & Co.
4. (Hobhouse L.J.); contra Marc A.G. v. Bishop Rock Marine Co. Ltd. [1996] 1 A.C. 211, 235 (Lord Steyn).
5. (Hobhouse L.J.); contra Marc Page v. Smith [1996] 1 A.C. 155, 187 (Lord Lloyd).
6. Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 A.C. 310.
7. As to the meaning of this, see Williams v. Natural Life Health Foods Ltd. [1998] 1 W.L.R. 829, 835–837 (Lord Steyn).
8. See esp. Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller and Partners Ltd. [1964] A.C. 465
9. Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd. [1995] 2 A.C. 145, 178–181 (Lord Goff) (on “The governing principle”).
10. A similar point was made by J. Stapleton, “The Gist of Negligence” (1988) 104 L.Q.R. 213
11. A valuable exception is C. Weston, “Suing in Tort for Loss of Computer Damage” [1999] C.L.J. 67.
12. Murphy v. Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 A.C. 398.
13. [1932] A.C. 562.
14. Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd. [1997] A.C. 655, 676
15. (Pill L.J.). This point was not subject to the subsequent appeal to the House of Lords, reported at the same place.
16. See, e.g., Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, s. 3
17. Limitation Act 1980, s. 38(1);
18. Cartledge v. E. Jopling & Sons Ltd. [1963] A.C. 758.
19. Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd. [1997] A.C. 655, 676
20. (Pill L.J.).
21. [1973] 1 Q.B. 27
22. Pure omissions constitute a different category of case. See, e.g., Kent v. Griffiths [2001] Q.B. 36.
23. E.g., Hotson v. East Berkshire A.H.A. [1987] 1 A.C. 750.
24. Contrast wrongful life claims, brought by children suffering congenital handicap or deformity. The Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, sub-s. l(2)(b) denies liability in such cases. The position is similar at common law.
25. The Court of Appeal in McKay v. Essex A.H.A. [1982] Q.B. 1166 held that such claims do not divulge damage “in any accepted sense”: at p. 1189
26. (Ackner L.J.) (emphasis added). One cogent reason for this denial of damage is the impossibility of comparing non-existence with (impaired) existence and in valuing such claims: at pp. 1181–1182
27. (Stephenson L.J.), 1189
28. (Ackner L.J.) 1192
29. (Griffiths L.J.). These actions are beyond the scope of this paper, as are the even more remote claims of wrongful birth brought by the parents of congenitally handicapped or disabled children.
30. See, e.g., Parkinson v. St. James and Seacroft University Hospital N.H.S. Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 530;
31. [2001] 3 W.L.R. 376.
32. 19 [2000] 2 A.C. 59.
33. This is well described in another context: Parkinson v. St. James and Seacroft University Hospital N.H.S. Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 530 at para. [67]
34. (Hale L.J.); [2001]
35. 3 W.L.R. 376.
36. Different considerations would apply, of course, where, due to the negligence of the doctor concerned, the claimant was to suffer some actual injury, such as a Caesarean scar: [2000] A.C. 59, 107 (Lord Millett). No argument is made here against the proposition that this is indeed physical injury. Arguments that equate unwanted pregnancy with injury simply because of its unwanted nature and because of the risks of something going wrong are fallacious. Negligence does not compensate for risks arising in the air. Damage, as has been stated, is required.
37. Cf. H. Rogers, “Legal Implications of Ineffective Sterilization” (1985) 5 L.S. 296, 310
38. A. Grubb, “Failed Sterilisation: Limitation and Personal Injury” (1996) 4 Med. L. Rev. 94, 97. The focus of this article is upon how that damage is conceptualised.
39. Ordinarily, physical injury is a pre-requisite to a claim for damages, which may include (as a “head of damages”) pain and suffering: H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages (16th edn., London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1997), at p. 49, para. 82.
40. [2000] 2 A.C. 59, 74.
41. [2000] 2 A.C. 59, 86.
42. [2001] EWCA Civ 113;
43. [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1279.
44. 1 W.L.R.
45. See, also, Hardman v. Amin [2000] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 498, 501
46. (Henriques J.).
47. [1990] 2 Q.B. 557.
48. 2 Q.B.
49. [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 395.
50. 2 Lloyd's Rep.
51. (1976) 136 C.L.R. 529.
52. [1973] 1 Q.B. 27.
53. (1999) 198 C.L.R. 180.
54. Plant Diseases Regulations 1989 (W.A.), Sch. 1, Pt. B, Item 14(l)(h)(ii) and (iii). (1999)
55. 198 C.L.R. 180, 192
56. (Gleeson C.J.), 197
57. (Gaudron J.), 240
58. (Gummow J.), 266
59. (Kirby J.), 299
60. (Hayne J.). Cf. at p. 329
61. (Callinan J.).
62. J. Gardner, “Obligations and Outcomes in the Law of Torts”, in P. Cane and J. Gardner, Relating to Responsibility: Essays for Tony Honoré (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001), esp. at pp. 122–125.
63. The other kind of “tall-order” obligation is that which arises under a strict liability tort, viz., not to cause damage. See Relating to Responsibility: Essays for Tony Honoré, at pp. 122–125.
64. Relating to Responsibility: Essays for Tony Honoré.
65. (1991) 93 Cr. App. R. 25.
66. Lord Lane C.J. rejected a suggestion that the interpretation of the phrase “physical damage-adopted by the court below was incorrect on the basis that the legislature had, by the time that R. v. Whiteley was taken on appeal, stepped in to clarify the meaning of the phrase. The Computer Misuse Act 1990, s. 3(6)
67. defines “damage”, for the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, as subsisting in some impairment to a computer's or to a computer storage medium's “physical condition”. His Lordship's view was that the subsequent amendment could not affect the original meaning of the words: (1991) 93 Cr. App. R. 25, 31.
68. See also Seaboard Life Insurance Co. v. Babich [1995] W.W.R. 756;
69. Rockport Pharmacy Inc. v. Digital Simplistic∗, Inc. 53 F. 3d 195 (1995).
70. The close relationship between these causes of action has often been noticed. See, e.g., F. Trindade and P. Cane, The Law of Torts in Australia (3rd edn., Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1999), at pp. 650–654.
71. Cf. M. Lee, “Civil Liability for Contamination: Blue Circle Industries Plc v. Ministry of Defence” (1999) 50 N.I.L.Q. 403, 409–410.
72. (1999) 198 C.L.R. 180.
73. C. Witting, “Negligent Inspectors and Flying Machines” [2000] C.L.J. 544.