Performance Cars v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33

KEY POINTS

• The court ruled in favour of the claimant, finding that the defendant's reckless driving was the cause of the fire and the resulting damage. The court applied the "but-for" test by considering what would have happened "but for" the defendant's negligent actions.

• It concluded that if the defendant had not driven recklessly and collided with the petrol pump, the fire and damage would not have occurred.

FACTS

• Plaintiff had a car collision with X that meant Plaintiff’s car needed a respray. He then collided with Defendant, through Defendant’s negligence, which would of itself have necessitated a respray.

• Plaintiff sued Defendant for the cost of a respray. CA ruled that since Plaintiff’s car already needed a respray, the need for it did not flow from Defendant’s negligence and therefore he would not be liable.

COMMENTARY

• This case illustrates the application of the "but-for" test in establishing causation in negligence claims.

• It highlights the importance of considering whether the defendant's negligent conduct was the actual cause of the claimant's harm.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Plaintiff had a car collision with X that meant Plaintiff’s car needed a respray. He then collided with Defendant, through Defendant’s negligence, which would of itself have necessitated a respray.

• Plaintiff sued Defendant for the cost of a respray.

• CA ruled that since Plaintiff’s car already needed a respray, the need for it did not flow from Defendant’s negligence and therefore he would not be liable.

Lord Evershed MR

• Says to allow Plaintiff to claim for damage that merely “would have” been caused by Defendant in other circumstances is absurd.

  • Suppose A chips my windscreen so I have to get a new one and then you chip it: surely you shouldn’t compensate me because there is no extra damage caused by your action.