Crossley v Rawlinson [1982] 1 WLR 369; [1981] 3 All ER 674
Queen’s Bench Division — 1981
Facts
Rawlinson stopped his lorry on the A12 after its tarpaulin caught fire. Crossley, an AA patrolman at a nearby service centre, took a fire extinguisher and ran towards it along a path on the grass verge.
Before reaching the lorry, he stepped into a concealed hole, fell and injured his back. He nevertheless reached the vehicle and tackled the fire. He claimed damages from the driver for his injuries.
Issue
Were Crossley’s injuries a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the driver’s negligence, so that the driver was legally responsible for them?
Decision and reasoning
The court dismissed the claim. Although the fire resulted from the driver’s negligence, the judge held that the injury caused by this fall on the approach to the lorry was not reasonably foreseeable. No damages were recoverable.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
The fact that the fire prompted Crossley to run towards the vehicle did not by itself establish liability. The claim required more than showing that, without the fire, he would not have been on the path. The court treated the accident as falling outside the consequences for which the driver was responsible.
The distinction is between a factual connection and legal responsibility for the resulting injury. Describing someone as a rescuer does not remove the need to examine the particular harm and the court’s reasons for treating it as foreseeable or too remote.
