Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham [1962] QB 33

Facts

  • The plaintiff, Performance Cars Ltd, owned a Rolls-Royce vehicle involved in two separate accidents.
  • The first accident caused significant damage, making a respray necessary.
  • Before the car was repaired, it was involved in a second accident caused by the defendant, Abraham.
  • The plaintiff sued Abraham to recover the cost of the respray, arguing that his negligence necessitated the repair.
  • Abraham contended the respray was already required because of the first accident and that he did not cause further damage.
  • The court was asked to determine if Abraham was liable for the cost of repairs related to pre-existing damage.

Issues

  1. Whether a defendant can be held liable in negligence for damage that existed prior to their negligent act.
  2. Whether Abraham's negligent conduct materially contributed to any additional harm beyond pre-existing damage.
  3. Whether the "but-for" test for causation was satisfied in attributing liability to Abraham.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that Abraham was not liable for the cost of the respray.
  • The respray was already needed due to the first accident; Abraham's actions did not create or aggravate the damage.
  • The "but-for" test was not satisfied, as the repainting would have occurred regardless of Abraham's negligence.
  • The plaintiff's claim for the cost of the respray was dismissed.

Legal Principles

  • The "but-for" test determines causation by considering if the harm would have occurred but for the defendant's conduct.
  • Liability in negligence arises only if the defendant’s act is a material cause of the damage.
  • A defendant is not liable for pre-existing damage or harm that would have occurred regardless of their actions.
  • Clear distinction must be made between pre-existing and new damage when assigning liability.

Conclusion

The case established that a defendant in negligence is not responsible for pre-existing damage; liability hinges upon proof that the defendant’s conduct made a material difference to the claimant’s loss. The decision clarified causation rules in cases involving sequential accidents or multiple causes of harm and remains an important authority in English negligence law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal