Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Lagden v O’Connor

[2004] 1 All ER 277

Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 20:10 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Lagden v O’Connor

D negligently damaged P’s car and since P couldn’t afford to hire a replacement, he obtained an agreement with a hire-credit firm that they would provide a car free of charge provided they could claim back the cost of the hire (which they charged far above the standard hire cost) from D’s insurers. D disputed that he had to pay the high cost of P’s replacement car. HL said that D had to pay the cost, as not too remote an expenditure. HL held that generally only the standard cost of hiring a car could be recovered, but an exception was granted where P was really so poor as to be pushed towards the higher rates of a hire-credit firm. (Not necessarily an exception to the general “reasonable foreseeability” rule: it could be construed as the economic equivalent of the think skull test, whereby the cost of replacement is inevitably greater on P for being poor, just as the physical injury in Leech Brain was extended due to the deceased’s condition).  

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>