Perrett v Collins
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 22 May 1998 |
Date | 22 May 1998 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Hobhouse, Lord Justice Swinton Thomas and Lord Justice Buxton
Duty of care - aircraft certification authority - duty owed to aircraft passenger
A certifying authority and its inspector who certified a light aircraft as fit to fly owed a duty of care to a passenger.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment dismissing an appeal by the second and third defendants, Les Usherwood and PFA (ULAIR) Ltd, trading as the Popular Flying Association, against the decision of Judge Hallgarten, QC, at Central London County Court on April 23, 1997 on a preliminary issue that they owed the plaintiff, Anthony John Perrett, a duty of care.
The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries suffered when he was a passenger on a light aircraft owned and constructed and flown by the first defendant, Simon Collins, which crashed during a test flight.
The second defendant had inspected the aircraft and certified that it was in an airworthy condition and the PFA, of which the first defendant was a member, had issued a certificate of fitness for flight under authority granted to it by the Civil Aviation Authority under section 3 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
Mr Giles Kavanagh for the second and third defendants; Mr Sebastian Reid for the plaintiff; Mr Edward H Bailey for the first defendant.
LORD JUSTICE HOBHOUSE said that the second and third defendants accepted that if reasonable care had not been exercised in relation to the airworthiness of the aircraft it was reasonably foreseeable by persons in their position that injuries might be caused to persons being carried in the aircraft.
However, their argument was that it was necessary to go further. The injury to the plaintiff must have been directly caused by them. The plaintiff must show in addition that it was fair, just and reasonable that they should be under a liability to the plaintiff. For those propositions they relied on Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co LtdELR ((1996) AC 211, 235, 237).
In Marc Rich the defendants were a classification society whose surveyor had recommended that a vessel's class be not withdrawn and that she could complete her voyage with only temporary repairs.
Those repairs were inadequate and the vessel sank a short time afterwards. The plaintiff's cargo was lost. The classification society owed no duty of care towards the cargo owners.
Lord Steyn had said that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority
...for appeals against the issue of improvement notices, and an appeal acted as a stay on the operation of the notice. However, in Perrett v Collins (1998) 2 Lloyd's Rep 255, this court (Hobhouse, Swinton Thomas and Buxton LJJ) held, on an appeal on a preliminary issue, held that the body issu......
-
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd and Another
...a clearly foreseeable danger. If authority is needed for this approach, it is to be found in the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Perrett v Collins [1998] 2 LL.L.Rep. 255." (Transcript p.15) "There is always a risk, and the pool from which professional boxers tend to be recruited is unlik......
-
Mrs Gillian Harrison Mr Michael Harrison Mr Nigel Harrison v (1) Technical Sign Company Ltd (First Defendant) (2) Maison Blanc Ltd (Second Defendant) (3) Active Commercial Interiors Ltd (Third Defendant) (4) Cluttons LLP (Fourth Defendant) (5) R&J Building Services Ltd (Fifth Defendant)
...has caused the claimants loss and damage. Such a conclusion is, in my judgement, consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Perrett v Collins [1999] PNLR 77: see in particular the judgement of Hobhouse LJ at page 87 A-D. 98 It follows that Maison Blanc succeeds in its claim for ......
- Nowran Begam Mohamed Saliff v Nantha Kumar Devar Sangaran and Another; Ctrm Aviation Sdn Bhd (Third Party)
-
THE PROMISE OF UNIVERSALITY
...G A Pitel eds) (Hart Publishing, 2007) at p 386. 92[1996] AC 923. 93Stovin v Wise[1996] AC 923 at 937. See also Perrett v Collins[1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 255 at 272. 94 For example, R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd[2011] 3 SCR 45 at [58]–[59]; Fullowka v Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd[2010] 1 SCR 132......
-
Strict Liability for Police Nonfeasance? The Kinghan Report on the Riot (Damages) Act 1886
...of StatutoryBodies: A Comparative and Economic Analysis of Five English Cases (Oxford: Hart, 1999) 79.144 eg Perrett vCollins [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255, 276 (Buxton LJ).Strict Liability for Police Nonfeasance?© 2014 The Author. The Modern Law Review © 2014 The Modern Law Review Limited.456 (......
-
Analysis
...Caparo test, and there was support for the position that it should not apply to novel cases of personal injury.1818Perrett v Collins [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 255 at 257–258 per Hobhouse LJ. See also Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co [1996] AC 211 at 229E-230D per Lord Lloyd (diss). The ......
-
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control: Negligent Rule‐Making in the Court of Appeal
...in the Court of Appeal, see P. Cane, ‘The Liability of ClassificationSocieties’ [1994] LMCLQ 363, 371–373.6 n 3 above, 237–238.7 [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255.January 2002] Watson vBritish Boxing Board of ControlßThe Modern Law Review Limited 2002 aviation legislation, this certification meant t......