Tort Coursework - Essay Example

Tort work In Gray v Thames Trains Ltd and another, the claimant Gray had been involved in a railway accident. It was his contention that he underwent post traumatic stress disorder, due to this incident. Subsequently, he killed a pedestrian, in a fit of rage; and pleaded manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility. As a consequence, the court ruled that he was to be detained in a hospital, as per the provisions of the Mental Health Act 19831. Thereafter, Gray brought an action in negligence, against the defendants; and claimed damages for his loss of earnings, subsequent to his detention; loss of liberty; damage to reputation; and for the guilt and remorse that had become his uninvited companions. It was argued by Gray that he had been beset by these ills, as a consequence of the post traumatic stress disorder engendered by the negligence of the defendants2. Gray’s claim was that in the absence of the defendants’ tort, he would not have been deprived of his earnings. Therefore, he contended that he had been put to a loss. Moreover, Gray claimed damages for the loss of earnings, prior to and subsequent to his killing of the pedestrian3. The legal doctrine of ex turpi causa oritur actio implies that an illegal or immoral act cannot constitute the basis for a cause of action4. The courts are required to adopt a non rigid stance, whilst effecting the doctrine of ex turpi causa oritur action. As such, it is essential for the court to apply the test of public conscience. Hence, it should arrive at a judicious balance between the negative outcomes of granting relief against those arising from the refusal to grant relief5. In Gray v Thames Trains Ltd, Lord Hoffmann stated that the maxim ex turpi causa was more of a policy than a principle. Moreover, such policy depends on a combination of several factors; which could vary, in accordance with the situation obtaining, in a specific instance6. Therefore, the court does not encourage a plaintiff to recover some benefit out of his own illegal act. Gray’s capacity to earn had been rescinded, due to the imposition of the hospital orders. The House of Lords, opined that the award of damages to the claimant, in respect of the loss of earnings, for the period, during which, the latter had been subjected to the orders of the civil court; would be at variance with the policy, on which these orders had been made7. In this case the House of Lords analysed the issues relating to causation and public policy, with regard to psychiatric illness. Lord Phillips had opined that there was a difference between imprisonment and a hospital order. In the absence of conviction for an offence that involves imprisonment, it would not be possible to impose a hospital order. In some instances, the sentencing judge had clarified that the claimant’s behaviour had no bearing on the issuance of a hospital order, against the latter8. The House of Lords opined that Gray’s claim and the manslaughter committed by him were not inescapably intertwined. Despite the fact that it was up to Gray to establish causation for each category of loss claimed by him; the onus of establishing that the killing of the pedestrian and subsequent detention of Gray, was tantamount to a break in the chain of causation, was vested with the defendants9. As a result, it was the duty of the trial court to rule, whether such discontinuity in the chain of causation had transpired. It is not possible to claim damages for a situation that arises due to one’s own criminal act. The chief issue related to causation, and it had to be ascertained, whether the immediate cause for the defendant’s criminal act was the defendant’s tortious conduct10. Gray’s liability to compensate the individual killed by him was the direct outcome of his having killed him deliberately. In this case, Gray’s diminished earnings were on account of the tort and his criminal act11. This resulted in delineation between the responsibilities of the claimant and the defendants. As a consequence, compensation was limited to the extent of the defendants’ actual liability12. Furthermore, such separation served to separate the claimant’s claim for compensation and the manslaughter committed by him. 2. In negligence cases, causation is the connection in legal reasoning that exists between tort and damage. In order to establish causation in tort, the but for test is employed. This test specifies the norm or automatically applied test13. In this case, it was contended that Gray was to be compensated for loss of earnings; subsequent to the killing of the pedestrian by him. Essentially, it was argued that on account of the injuries, Gray had been losing earnings and that the situation would have persisted, irrespective of his having caused the death of the pedestrian14. It was justified for the court to rule, as per the provisions of the Law Reform Act 1945, that the manslaughter constituted a fault15. Consequently, Gray’s loss of earnings could be attributed partially to the tort and partially to his conscious criminal act. The outcome of such segregation would serve to distance the claimant’s responsibility from that of the defendants16. The perspective of the civil law was that although Gray’s responsibility for killing the pedestrian had been reduced, on account of the stress disorder; Gray could not circumvent responsibility for his act, because he had been cognisant of his actions. The imposition of a hospital order could not be construed to be punishment. Nevertheless, this could not be construed as exoneration of Gray by the presiding judge, for the killing of the pedestrian by the former17. In Jobling v Associated Dairies, the claimant was awarded damages for the physical harm caused to him by his employer. Subsequently, after four years, the claimant was diagnosed with a pre – existing disease that gradually made him unfit for work. The liability of the employer was reduced to four years18. This decision served to preclude the liability of the defendant, in Gray v Thames Trains Ltd; because, the court opined that even if the plaintiff had not committed manslaughter, his earning capacity would have decreased, on account of his post trauma stress disorder19. In this case the claimant was required to establish causation for the loss of his earnings. The defendant was also required to establish that the killing had served to break the chain of causation. The burden of proof lay on the defendant. Hence, the true cause for the loss was the Post Trauma Stress Disorder caused by the tort. A public policy per se cannot annul a claim for damages. In order to set aside such claims, it has to be established that these claims were inextricably linked with the immoral or illegal conduct of the claimant. 3. Causation is an important factor for determining liability for damages. Public policy, per se, cannot relieve the tortfeasor from liability for damages. As per the case law discussed , establishing a relationship between the illegal act and the tort is indispensable. If the offence committed by the claimant is not serious enough to result in imprisonment, and a hospital order is made, on account of the claimant’s mental state; then the principle of ex turpi causa would be inapplicable. In such instances, there would be a firm basis for treating such orders, as being the consequence of the claimant’s mental condition. Therefore, it can be construed that the court had not taken into consideration, the criminal act perpetrated by the claimant. At this juncture, the doctrine of ex turpi causa would be rendered inapplicable20. Consequently, Gray would be awarded damages, even for the period subsequent to the commission of the criminal act. In Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd, the Appellate Court held the employer liable to the employee’s dependants. It was held that the employee’s state of mind that had resulted in his suicide was due to the breach of duty by the employer21. In Ashton v Turner, it was opined that causation plays a vital role in providing a defense to the parties, in cases of damage ensuing from illegal acts22. It is essential to establish a relationship between the illegal act and the tort. Even if such relationship can be established, the defence of illegality may not be effective. This could be on account of the court deeming it to be unfair to deny a remedy to a claimant, solely on the ground that the claimant had been guilty of some minor criminal offence. For instance, many of the successful claimants in motor accidents had been driving at a speed that was in excess of the specified speed limits23. If Gary had committed a crime that was less serious than manslaughter, then he would have been eligible to receive damages, even for the period, subsequent to the commission of the crime. List of References Ashton v Turner (1981) Q.B. 137 Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd (2006) ICR 1138, CA Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2009) UKHL 33 Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982) AC 794 HL Joel Townsend. Gray v Thames Trains: Another Causation Dilemma. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. Vol. 16, Issue 3, p. 333 Killer can sue tortfeasor over loss of earnings. The Times (London), 9 July 2008, P. 53 Law Report, The Independent (London); 16 September 1991, Section: Home News. P. 4 Negligence II: causation and remoteness of damage. Retrieved on 2 January 2010 from http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199287642/hodgson_ch02.pdf Phil Parry. Courts must steer middle course between unacceptable positions. Lloyd’s List. 2 December 1998 Richard Kidner. Casebook on Torts. Oxford University Press. 2008 Mental Health Act 1983 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 Vivienne Harpwood. Modern tort law. Routledge Cavendish. 2005 You cannot benefit from your own wrong. The Times (London), 19 June, 2009. FEATURES; p. 81 Read More