A straightforward example of this can be found in the case of Performance Cars v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33. Here, a collision occurred between two cars, one being the plaintiff’s Rolls Royce, as a result of the negligence of the other driver. The damage to the Rolls Royce required a respray of the whole car to remedy it. Two weeks later, a second collision between the same Rolls Royce and a different car, driven by the defendant, caused similar damage which also required a respray to repair it. The Court of Appeal concluded that, as the requirement for a respray already existed before the second collision, [...].
Answer
there was effectively no damage arising from that second collision
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
A straightforward example of this can be found in the case of Performance Cars v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33. Here, a collision occurred between two cars, one being the plaintiff’s Rolls Royce, as a result of the negligence of the other driver. The damage to the Rolls Royce required a respray of the whole car to remedy it. Two weeks later, a second collision between the same Rolls Royce and a different car, driven by the defendant, caused similar damage which also required a respray to repair it. The Court of Appeal concluded that, as the requirement for a respray already existed before the second collision, [...].
Answer
?
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
A straightforward example of this can be found in the case of Performance Cars v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33. Here, a collision occurred between two cars, one being the plaintiff’s Rolls Royce, as a result of the negligence of the other driver. The damage to the Rolls Royce required a respray of the whole car to remedy it. Two weeks later, a second collision between the same Rolls Royce and a different car, driven by the defendant, caused similar damage which also required a respray to repair it. The Court of Appeal concluded that, as the requirement for a respray already existed before the second collision, [...].
Answer
there was effectively no damage arising from that second collision
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it e Rolls Royce and a different car, driven by the defendant, caused similar damage which also required a respray to repair it. The Court of Appeal concluded that, as the requirement for a respray already existed before the second collision, <span>there was effectively no damage arising from that second collision. <span><body><html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.