Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd 1967 1 WLR 337 261262

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 153631
Jump to navigation Jump to search


(1967) 1 All ER 267


Khushi Sharma

The word tort is originated from French language which means to twist. According to Section 2(m) of the Limitation Act, 1963, tort has been defined asbeing a civil wrong. Whenever there is a violation of one person’s right by another person that person has committed the offence under tort. The main object of tort is to square up the rights between the parties in dispute; to protect the rights of every individual recognized by law. There are certain essential requisites which constitute as tort which are:-

i.Commission of wrongful act or omission;

ii.Duty must be imposed by law;

iii.The act must give rise to legal or actual damage.

Wrongful act

There are two types of wrongful acts. First, where one person’s legal rights are compromised. Second, where moral rights of a person are violated. There can an which would affect a person’s moral and legal rights at the same time. Those acts would also fall under same category. The legal right which has been violated must be a wrongful act which has been recognized by law. The liability of tort arises when there is some wrongful act done which amounted to infringement of legal right of a person. For example:- if a person is stopped from going to election booth to cast his/her vote, though the representative he/she was going to vote, won the elections, there is still a violation of his/her legal right.

Duty imposed by law

There is a pre-assumed notion that if the person is crossing a road he/she must have taken a reasonable care while doing so. It is believed by the law makes that an accident cannot be termed an accident if the victim knew that such thing was going to happen to him/her. The law of tort also imply the same thing. A duty of care is imposed on a person and a required set off standards are to be maintained so that he/she is not harmed. In layman’s language it means that the duty imposed by Indian court which are legally enforceable.

Legal damages

The term damages means the compensation which would be rewarded to the victim who’s legal rights are violated. There are the money paid to the aggrieved party.

Measurement of damages

There is no particular formula to decide the quantum of compensation for the aggrieved. There are various factors which result in the actual amount of compensation which should be provided. The facts and circumstances of each case are different, the measure to decide the amount is also different in each case. It is the discretion of the court to award compensation.

Remoteness of damages

When the damage is done there is a need to determine the liability. How much liability can be fixed and what are the factors which determines the liability, is discussed under the principle of remoteness of damages.

The test of reasonable foresight

If the outcomes of the wrongful act were foreseen been by a man, they will not be considered “too remote”. And if the reasonable man is unable to foresee the consequences then they are too remote. The person would be liable only for unforeseeable consequences i.e. which are not too remote.

Bradford v Robinsons Rental ltd.

Facts:-There was an employee named Bradford working under employer (defendant) Robinsons Rentals. In the course of his employment he was requested to be sent to assist a colleague for a vehicle repair. The above request was made in the time of January, during that time everyone including the defendant was aware about the fact that there was going to be a bad weather which can result to unusual cold. The trip necessitated the drive of about 20 hours as the distance was about 450 to 500 miles In total. The vehicle Bradford was driving had problem in its heating function. The exposure to the severe cold weather resulted in the injuries of frostbites to claimant. Bradford was dressed according to the weather which proved that he took reasonable care.

Issue:-that the injuries which are sustained by claimant were reasonably foreseen which resulted in tort.

Held:-the court appliedHughes v. Lord advocateand established though frostbites is a rare injury in England and were not foreseeable. The sort of injury was foreseeable, in particular injury coming about because of openness to outrageous climate conditions. It was reaffirmed that in surveying hurt, the exact injury need not have been expected, rather the respondent need just have had the option to anticipate a physical issue of that sort happening.


<style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style"> </style>

·The remoteness of damages, Available on:-[1](last accessed on 8 june 2021).