In tort law is a defendent liable for secondary injuries?

Question

for example if a person suffers minor injuries in a car accident by the defendent, then whilst in hospital catches a virus and gets worse and needs a leg amputation, and is off work for 6 months,
does the defendent pay for the virus and sick pay even though he only caused the minor injurues?

does this still apply in the UK if the driver was drunk when driving and causing injuries?

Answer 1

This is something which only the court can decide. The test is the one made famous in the Waggon Mound case, when the whole issue of foreseeability was discussed thoroughly. "Foreseeable" at common law does not mean "likely", or even "more likely than not". Highly improbable events may be held foreseeable, if they cannot be ruled out. Thus the unlikely event of a cricket ball being hit out of a ground so as to strike a pedestrian passing by in the road outside was regarded as foreseeable in Bolton v. Stone, even though the odds of it happening might be calculated as infinitesimally (see the speeches in the House of Lords; the chance of oil on water being ignited, when it was hardly ever known to happen, was obviously small, but nonetheless foreseeable: Waggon Mound (No.2) [1967] AC.) It sounds, on the face of it, as though there might be a prospect of success, but it is the kind of question which a solicitor would pass on to a barrister for counsel's opinion. It is not a question for Yahoo!

Answer 2

Proximity and relationships there is actual proximity the position operating example someone suffers marvel at the same time as seeing the damaged brought about after a street traffc crash. and besides the actual undeniable truth that doesn't witness any bodies/death talked about adequate blood etc to be effected and owed an criminal responsibility of care and there is relationship proximity the position the guy does not might want to witness an journey regardless of the indisputable fact that the relationship that exists between that man or woman and the sufferer as on your concern is sufficient to owe the pastime of care See donoghe v stevens case lower back...the producer became no the position close to the claimant on the time...regardless of the indisputable fact that the relationship (client and dealer) became close adequate See also hill v chief constable of west yorkshire 1988

Answer 3

Hi,

Further to Caicos' excellent answer, the other question here is "is the resulting issue too remote compared to the necessary 'but for' test?"

This is a matter for the courts to decide.

Answer 4

I think it boils down to the proximate cause - i.e what put them in that position in the first place

Answer 5

If they have a direct correlation with the primary cause.