Performance Cars Ltd (Plaintiffs v Harold James Abraham (Defendant

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
JudgeTHE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
Judgment Date26 July 1961
Judgment citation (vLex)[1961] EWCA Civ J0726-5
Date26 July 1961

[1961] EWCA Civ J0726-5

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

From His Honour Judge Sir Shirley Worthington-Evans, Brentford County Court.

Before:-

The Master of the Rolls (Lord Evershed)

Lord Justice Harman and

Lord Justice Donovan

Performance Cars Limited
Plaintiffs (Respondents)
and
Harold James Abraham
Defendant (Appellant)

MR. J.D. HARMAN (instructed by Messrs Barlow, Lyde &Gilbert) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.

MR D. WEEATLEY(Instructed by Messrs. P. R. Berry Co., Brentford)appeared as Counsel for the Respondents

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
1

This appeal has raised an interesting and novel point. On the 25tih February, 1360, the Defendant when driving his own motor car collided with the Rolls Royce motor car of the Plaintiffs' being driven by one of the Plaintiffs' Directors. The collision was not serious and the Defendant, the Appellant in this Court, has accepted full responsibility for the accident The Appellant's car struck the offside front wing and the bumper of the Plaintiffs' Rolls Royce and there is no dispute as to the damage strictly attributable to this injury insofar as it required that the dent in the wing should be towered out and the bumper straightened and re-chromed. The Plaintiffs' Rolls Royce is of a kind know as "Silver Cloud" The top of the me or car and the bonnet is painted black but the lower part of the -motor car, Including the wings, were of a pale colour appropriate, I assume, to the description "Silver Cloud". It has been concedes by the Appellant that where damage is done, say to the wing, of a kind which occurred in the. present case, it is necessary to reap ray the -whole of the lower part of the body, since if only the damaged wing were resprayed the colour would be In obvious contrast to that of the rest of the loser part of the motor car. The claim for this lien amounts to £75.

2

Now It so happened that a fortnight earlier the Plaintiffs' saps motor car had been soruek by another motor vehicle, the fault again being solely that. of the other vehicle This accident was also slight but on this occasion the damage consisted of a bump in the back of the lower part of the Rolls Ro-co motor car. The Plaintiffs sued the owner of this other vehicle and recovered Judgment by Co fault for a sun of damages slightly larger than the claim against the present appellant but the sum so recovered! included the same amount of £75 in respect of repaying the whole of the lower part of the car, an; again it is not in doubt, and for the same reason which has already been stated, that such a claim was properly made as part of the damage caused by this first collision, unfortunately the Plaintiffs have recovered nothing under their first Judgment and It appear:, from what we have been told It la extremely unlikely that they will do so. but the vital fact le that when the Appellant hit the Plaintiffs motor car the work of restoration to the latter as the result of the first accident had not yet been done In those circumstances It has been said by the Appellant that he la not liable for the £75 claimed against him, being the cost of reap raying the whole of the lower part of the body of the Rolls Royce.

3

What is said may be quite simply thus expressed At the date of the Appellant's collision the Rolls Royce's condition was such that it had then In any case to be resprayed so that the need for so doing did not arise from the Appellant's wrongful act. On the other side it is said that here you have two separate tortfeasors and each must be liable for the consequences of his tortious act naturally and properly flowing from the respective wrongs. It is conceded by the Plaintiffs that they could not recover the cont of respraying from both wrongdoers, the earlier motorist and the Appellant, and they offer accordingly to assign to the Appellant the benefit of the earlier judgment, at least so far as it relates to this part of the claim

4

The point appears, an I have said, novel and interesting but, with all respect to the County Court Judge, I have come to the conclusion that the Appellant's view is right and that he is entitled to succeed. In the case of Shearman v. Folland (1950, 2 K. b. p. 42) it was pointed out by Lord Justice Asquith, delivering the Judgment o. "the Court, on page 45 quoting from Rayne on Damages, 11th Edition, p. 151, that "matter completely collateral, and merely are inter alias acts cannot...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 May 2004
    ...first accident" (para 19), and derived support for his conclusion from the decision of this court in Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33. The first defendant appeals against this decision. 58 Mr Foster's primary submission is that, since there was an "exact overlap of da......
  • Baker v Willoughby
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 26 November 1969
    ...the first wrongdoer but must pay for any additional damage caused by him. That was the ground of decision in Performance Cars v. Abraham [1962] 1 Q.B. 33. There a car sustained two slight collisions: the first necessitated respraying over a wide area which included the place damaged by the ......
  • Fitzgerald v Lane
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 6 March 1987
    ...the tetraplegia and would have absolved the second defendant from responsibility for this injury: (Performance Cars Ltd. v. Abraham (1962) 1 Q.B. 33). As Lord Reid pointed out in Baker v. Willoughby (1970) A.C. 467 at p. 493, that case exemplifies "the general rule that a wrongdoer mus......
  • Sandra Mayne (executrix of the Estate of Keith Norman Deceased) v Atlas Stone Company Ltd and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 6 May 2016
    ...which he said lent support to the Defendant's argument, in particular Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467, Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33, Steel v Joy [2004] EWCA Civ 576, Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 11 and Williams v Bermuda Hos......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT