Murray v Shuter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER of THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON |
| Judgment Date | 06 October 1971 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1971] EWCA Civ J1006-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 06 October 1971 |
[1971] EWCA Civ J1006-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by plaintiff from order of Mr. Justice Eveleigh on 30th July, 1971
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Edmund Davies and
Lord Justice Stephenson
Mr. RAYMOND KIDWELL, Q.C., and Mr. GRAEME HAMILTON (instructed by Messrs, Clifford-Turner & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Plaintiff.
Mr. JOHN GRIFFITHS (instructed by Messrs. L. Bingham & Co.) appeared on behalf of the First and Second Defendants, Respondents.
Mr. TIMOTHY WALKER (instructed by Mr. Donald Haslam) appeared on behalf of the Third Defendant, Respondent.
This case raises dramatically the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Oliver v. Ashman (1962)2 Q.B.210. It was there held that if an injured man's expectation of life is reduced, he does not get any compensation for his loss of earnings during the "lost years".
Mr. Murray was a business executive of 31 years of age, with a wife and three weeks old child. He was injured in a road traffic accident on 9th January, 1969. He was then a passenger in the back seat of a motorcar. There was a pile-up on the M.1 motorway. The car in which he was travelling was struck in the rear by a motor coach. There were about sixty other cars in that enormous crash. He was taken to the West Herts Hospital, where he was found to have a very badly fractured skull. He has been unconscious ever since. An agreed medical report on 1st February, 1971, said:
"Now, almost exactly two years after the accident, he is in a state of total disablement.…. He has not responded in any way to his surroundings, though the nursing staff suspect that he might occasionally possibly be aware that there is someone in his vicinity. His limbs are completely paralysed."
The opinion went on:
"This is a disastrous case of the most severe brain damage, the severity being only just compatible with the maintenance of those basic functions required for continued existence the patient has, in my opinion, no chance of any useful recovery whatever. He will have to remain under continuous nursing care for an indefinite period. I discussed the probable duration of life with my surgical colleagues. I think we were in general agreement in supposing that the expectation of life in this case must be comparatively brief, that is to say, a matter of months or, at most, a year or so. For him to survive as long as a year will depend upon the continuation of his present excellent nursing."
The report ends with these words:
"I feel that we can now say that it has in many ways been a pity that his medical and surgical care after the accident has been so effective; for it has resulted in this prolonged and most distressing illness, where there is no prospect of any useful recovery whatever."
An action on his behalf was brought promptly and carried on expeditiously. It is clear that there is no defence to it. Either the driver of the coach, or the driver of the car is liable, or both. The case was originally to be tried on 17th May of this year. By consent that date was vacated. Instead the date for trial was fixed for 4th October. A few days before that date, the plaintiff's advisers made an urgent application to Mr. Justice Eveleigh to adjourn the trial. He thought that the application raised a point of public importance. He fixed the date for 4th November and suggested that there should be an appeal to this Court.
The plaintiff's advisers ask us to vacate the date of 4th November and to stand out the case generally with liberty to restore. They give these very cogent practical reasons: If the case is tried before Mr. Murray dies, his damages will be comparatively low; because, according to Oliver v. Ashman there will be no compensation for his loss of earnings during his "lost years". His compensation will be for his pain and suffering, for nursing and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mahon v Burke
...CHARLESWORTH ON NEGLIGENCE PARA 1508 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S7(1) READ V GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY CO 1868 LR 3 QB 555 MURRAY V SHUTER 1972 1 LLOYDS REP 6 MCCANN V SHEPPARD 1973 1 WLR 540 PICKETT V BRITISH RAIL ENGINEERING LTD 1980 AC 136 GAMMELL V WILSON 1982 AC 27 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 19......
-
Hewitt v Health Service Executive
...Railway Company (1868) L.R. 3 Q.B. 555; Williams v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board [1905] 1 K.B. 805, C.A. and Murray v. Shuter [1972] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 6,7. No point about the correctness of this assumption arises for decision in this appeal and therefore I express no concluded opinion abou......
-
Thompson v Arnold
...I have set out above that a dependency claim will usually be larger. Authority supports such an approach: Stephenson LJ. recognised in Murray v Shuter [1972] 1 Ll Rep 6, CA that: “delay usually defeats justice; but there are cases, of which claims for head injuries are notoriously an instan......
-
McCann v Sheppard
...In his judgment, Mr. Justice blackburn gave the answer: "To hold this would be to strain the words of the section". The second is Murray v. Shuter (1972) 1 Lloyds 6. Mr. Hurray was so severely injured that he could only be expected to survive for a few months. His advisors thought that the ......