ON 8 AUGUST 1961, the High Court of Australia delivered Chapman v Hearse [1961] HCA 46; (1961) 106 CLR 112 (8 August 1961).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1961/46.html

Chapman negligently drove his vehicle causing it to collide with another vehicle and overturn. Chapman was ejected from his vehicle and came to rest unconscious on the roadway. Dr Cherry came to Chapman’s assistance but was struck and fatally injured by a vehicle driven by Hearse who had negligently failed to see him.

The executor or the estate of Dr Cherry sued Hearse in the Supreme Court of South Australia for damages arising from the doctor’s death.

The Chief Justice of the South Australian Supreme Court found Hearse to be liable, ordering him to pay damages but also ordered that Chapman should contribute one quarter of that sum.

Chapman appealed to the South Australian Court of Appeal, who dismissed the appeal.

Chapman appealed against the decision in the High Court, arguing that (1) Chapman owed Dr Cherry no duty of care as it was not reasonably foreseeable (2) Dr Cherry’s death was caused solely by the negligence of Hearse and (3) the damage was to remote in any case.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. On the questions of duty and remoteness, the High Court held that Chapman did owe Dr Cherry a duty of care as it was “sufficient in the circumstances of this case to ask whether a consequence of the same general character as that which followed was reasonably foreseeable as one not unlikely to follow a collision between two vehicles on a dark wet night upon a busy highway”. In essence, the court held that one is liable for all damage which is of the same general nature as that which could be reasonably foreseen.

On the question of causation, the court held that a wrongful intervening act does not of itself break the chain of causation as long as the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable.

 1300 00 2088

ON 5 AUGUST 1942, the House of Lords delivered Bourhill v Young [1942] UKHL 5 (5 August 1942).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1942/5.html

A car and motorcycle collided near a tram causing fatal injuries to the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist was travelling at excessive speed and was at fault. A passenger on the tram heard the sound of the collision but saw nothing. She was startled by the noise of the collision, suffering nervous shock, though she was not in immediate physical injury herself. She observed blood on the roadway after the motorcyclists body had been removed. She later suffered a miscarriage. She claimed damages including losses to her business arising from the nervous shock.

The House of Lords held that the motorcyclist was not guilty of negligence as he did not owe a duty of care to the tram passenger as he could not have reasonably foreseen the likelihood that anyone placed as her (in a position of apparent safety) could have been affected in such a manner.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088