Facts
- Mr. Rahman, an employee of Arearose Ltd, was violently assaulted at his workplace and sustained physical injuries.
- Arearose Ltd, his employer, had negligently failed to provide adequate safety measures to prevent foreseeable harm.
- Following the assault, Mr. Rahman received negligent medical treatment from a surgeon, resulting in blindness in his right eye.
- The physical injury arose from the employer’s breach of duty, while the blindness resulted from a distinct act of medical negligence by the surgeon.
- Both negligent acts contributed to Mr. Rahman’s psychological harm.
- Proceedings were brought against both Arearose Ltd (the employer) and the treating surgeon.
Issues
- Whether Arearose Ltd was liable for the injuries sustained during the assault due to its failure to provide adequate safety.
- Whether the negligence of the surgeon, as a separate act, caused additional, distinct harm to Mr. Rahman.
- Whether damages should be apportioned between the employer and the surgeon, and if so, how.
- Whether the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 applied in the context of non-concurrent torts.
- How to apportion damages, especially psychological harm, resulting from multiple negligent acts.
Decision
- Arearose Ltd was found solely liable for damages arising from the initial assault, including loss of earnings before the medical negligence.
- The surgeon was found completely liable for the blindness caused by negligent treatment.
- Psychological damages were apportioned: one third assigned to Arearose Ltd, and two thirds to the surgeon, reflecting the proportionate contribution of each act to the overall harm.
- The court concluded that the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 does not apply where negligent acts are not concurrent but sequential and result in distinct injuries.
- The court adopted a pragmatic approach in apportioning damages, considering the relative blameworthiness and causal impact of each defendant’s conduct.
Legal Principles
- Employer’s liability arises from failure to fulfill a duty of care that directly leads to physical injury.
- Separate negligent acts by different parties which cause distinct injuries do not constitute concurrent torts for the purposes of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.
- Damages for psychological injury can arise from multiple negligent causes and may be apportioned pragmatically according to the relative impact of each cause.
- The causal link between a defendant’s breach and the alleged damage is central to establishing liability and apportionment.
Conclusion
The judgment established that where tortious acts are separate and not concurrent, liability is assigned according to each defendant’s distinct contribution to the damage, with damages apportioned pragmatically for psychological harm resulting from both negligent acts. This case elucidates the limits of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 and demonstrates judicial flexibility in dealing with complex causation.
