McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts [1969] 3 All ER 1621
Judgement for the case McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts
Table Of Contents
Plaintiff was mildly injured at work (his left leg became stiffer and weaker) due to Defendant’s negligence, and was later trying to climb a flight of flight of stairs.
Due to the weakness of his left leg following the injury, he was about to fall and instead of falling jumped and broke his rights ankle.
Plaintiff claimed damages for the ankle-break but HL refused.
HL said Defendant was only responsible for the first accident.
Lord Reid
Defendant should have been more careful following his accident. If a person who is injured does act “reasonably and carefully” given the circumstances of the injury, but is still caused a second injury, then Plaintiff will be responsible for that too.
If Defendant fails to so act (as here - the stair was steep with no hand rail and Defendant refused to wait for assistance), Defendant is not liable for the second accident.
A defender is not liable for a consequence of a kind which is not foreseeable.
For Further Study on McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.