Lagden v O’Connor [2003] UKHL 64
Damages – Credit Hire Agreement – Foreseeability – Remoteness of Damage – Eggshell Skull Rule – Road Traffic Accident
Facts
The Defendant, Mr O’Connor, hit the claimant’s parked car and caused damage to the vehicle. The claimant, Mr Lagden, was unemployed at the time of the incident and could not afford to pay for another car while his vehicle was being repaired. Instead, he entered into a credit hire agreement for another car while his vehicle was being repaired. He sought damages for the cost of the credit hire.
Issues
Damages were awarded for the cost of the credit hire agreement. But, the defendant appealed this decision. The issue was whether the cost of credit hire for the vehicle could be fully 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.
Decision/Outcome
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal by a majority. Lagden reasonably needed a replacement car and could not afford to pay ordinary hire charges up front. Credit hire was his only reasonable option. On those facts, the additional cost was recoverable as a reasonable expense incurred to mitigate his loss. A claimant who could reasonably obtain an equivalent car at the ordinary hire rate would generally be limited to that rate.
The majority rejected the argument based on The Liesbosch that losses attributable to a claimant’s lack of means were necessarily too remote. The question was whether the loss was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances.
Reported citations [2004] 1 All ER 277, [2004] 1 AC 1067, [2003] 3 WLR 1571, [2004] RTR 24, [2004] Lloyd’s Rep IR 315, [2004] AC 1067
