St George v Home Office [2008] EWCA Civ 1068

Court of Appeal

Basic Facts: C entered Brixton prison and informed officers of his withdrawal symptoms. Despite this, he was assigned a top bunk and later suffered severe brain damage from a fall.

Issue for the Court: Was it correct to conclude contributory negligence due to C’s addiction, which contributed to the injury?

Held: The Court of Appeal rejected the defendant's arguments. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision that the fall from the top bunk had indeed triggered the extent of the seizures. The judge was entitled to rely on the medical evidence presented, and the Court of Appeal found no reason to overturn this finding. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision to attribute 15% contributory negligence to the claimant. The Court of Appeal held that the claimant's addiction to drugs and alcohol, which began in his mid-teens, was not sufficiently connected to the injury he suffered in 1997 to justify a finding of contributory negligence. The addiction was seen as a background condition rather than a direct cause of the injury triggered by the fall.

• Dyson LJ:

• C’s addiction was too remote a cause of his injury to be considered contributory negligence.

• The prison staff had assumed responsibility for C’s welfare and failed to act on his warnings, thus their negligence was the primary cause of his injury.

💡Levelup :This decision indicates that contributory negligence cannot be based on distant or unrelated actions; the claimant's fault must be closely intertwined with the injury for such a finding to be upheld.