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.