PERRETT v. COLLINS AND OTHERS

A person who undertakes an activity giving control over a source of danger owes a duty of care to a contemplated class exposed to a foreseeable risk of personal injury. Where that relationship falls within an established category of negligence, the claimant need not satisfy additional criteria developed for pure economic loss.

An inspector who has a critical and independent role in certifying an aircraft as fit to fly may therefore owe a duty to its passengers. Neither the aircraft owner's concurrent responsibility nor the indirect form of the inspector's conduct removes that duty. The statutory purpose of protecting air safety, the inspector's control over whether the aircraft may fly and the passenger's entitlement to rely on the safety regime strongly support liability.

The claimant was injured while travelling as a passenger on a proving flight in a light aircraft assembled and piloted by its owner. It was alleged that an incompatible propeller and gearbox made the aircraft unsafe. An inspector approved by the Popular Flying Association had supervised its construction and certified it as airworthy. The Association then issued a certificate of fitness for flight, without which the flight could not lawfully have taken place.

On a preliminary issue, His Honour Judge Hallgarten QC held that the inspector and the Association owed the claimant a duty of care. They appealed, relying principally on Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [1996] 1 AC 211. Foreseeability was conceded. The central questions were whether there was sufficient proximity and whether imposing a duty was fair, just and reasonable.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The inspector and the Popular Flying Association owed the claimant passenger a duty to take reasonable care in inspecting the aircraft and certifying it as fit to fly. The order below was affirmed, with costs, and leave to appeal was refused.
2. Established liability for personal injury. Hobhouse LJ held that a defendant who becomes involved in an activity which creates a foreseeable risk of personal injury must act reasonably in all respects relevant to that risk. The claimant need only belong to a class whom the defendant contemplated, or ought to have contemplated, as liable to be affected. The inspector exercised an independent and critical safety function. His role was neither merely subsidiary to that of the aircraft's constructor nor dependent upon the constructor also being at fault.
3. Directness and economic-loss principles. Hobhouse LJ held that direct infliction of injury was not an additional requirement. Lack of directness provided no defence once proximity and causation were established. The refined controls developed for pure economic loss did not govern an established claim for foreseeable personal injury. Swinton Thomas LJ reached the same result by considering proximity and whether liability was fair, just and reasonable together. Buxton LJ considered the injury direct in the relevant sense but held that, even if it were indirect, the statutory purpose, the defendants' control and the physical nature of the harm made liability just, fair and reasonable.
4. Safety regime. The scheme under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Air Navigation Order 1989 existed substantially to protect passengers and other members of the public from physical injury caused by unsafe aircraft. The aircraft could not fly without the inspector's and Association's certification. A passenger was entitled to assume that applicable safety requirements had been met and that those responsible for certification had exercised reasonable care.
5. Authorities and policy. Marc Rich [1996] 1 AC 211 was distinguished. It concerned property or economic interests within a specialised maritime contractual and insurance structure, and a classification society whose role was subsidiary. Those considerations did not apply here. The owner's possible liability, insurance arrangements, the defendants' non-profit character and unsupported concerns about insurance premiums or defensive inspection did not displace the duty.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The inspector's and Association's appeal was dismissed unanimously. The court affirmed that both owed the claimant a duty of care.
2. Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Hallgarten QC decided the preliminary duty-of-care issue in the claimant's favour. The judgment was delivered on 23 April 1997 and the relevant order was dated 14 May 1997.