Bourhill v Young
Bourhill v Young | |
---|---|
Court | House of Lords |
Decided | 5 August 1942 |
Citation(s) | [1943] AC 92 |
Transcript(s) | judgment |
Keywords | |
Remoteness of damage |
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 (also titled Hay v Young) is a
Facts
On 11th October 1938, Mr Young had been negligently riding a motorcycle along a road, and was involved in a
Judgement
In order to succeed in her claim, Mrs Bourhill had to establish a duty of care had been owed to her by Mr Young. To find such a duty, the claimant must be foreseeable, or proximate to the scene of the accident.[3] The House of Lords denied that Mrs Bourhill had been foreseeable to Mr Young, at the time of the accident. Lord Russell stated:
Can it be said that John Young could reasonably have anticipated that a person, situated as was the appellant, would be affected by his proceeding towards Colinton at the speed at which he was travelling? I think not. His road was clear of pedestrians. The appellant was not within his vision, but was standing behind the solid barrier of the tramcar. His speed in no way endangered her. In these circumstances I am unable to see how he could reasonably anticipate that, if he came into collision with a vehicle coming across the tramcar into Glenlockhart Road, the resultant noise would cause physical injury by shock to a person standing behind the tramcar. In my opinion, he owed no duty to the appellant, and was, therefore, not guilty of any negligence in relation to her.[4]
References
- ^ [1943] AC 92, p. 94
- ^ [1943] AC 92, p. 93
- ISBN 0-19-923228-8.Kidner, p. 20
- ^ [1943] AC 92, p. 102