Pearce v Lindfield & Ors

Where medical evidence establishes that several tortious events cumulatively caused a chronic condition, each event may constitute a material contribution to the condition. Each tortfeasor is liable for consequential loss attributable to that condition, even where the final event triggered the loss and earlier events alone would not have done so. In assessing likely retirement, the court must consider the claimant as an individual, rather than relying on general retirement patterns within the occupation.

The claimant suffered three separate road traffic accidents within nine months. Liability for the accidents was accepted. The Reading County Court held that the cumulative effect of the accidents caused the claimant’s chronic pain state and that all three defendants were liable for the resulting loss, including loss of earnings and pension rights. The first and second defendants appealed against liability for those losses. The first defendant also challenged the finding that the claimant would probably have worked until age 60. The central issues were whether the final accident alone caused the loss of employment and whether the retirement assessment should reflect general evidence about teachers or the claimant’s individual circumstances.

1. Disposition. The appeals were dismissed. The order for costs was upheld, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis.
2. Cumulative causation. Lord Justice Kay held that the agreed medical evidence established that the claimant’s chronic pain state resulted from the cumulative effect of all three accidents. Once that was established, each accident made a material contribution to the condition. The claimant was therefore entitled to recover not only for the continuing pain and psychological consequences, but also for consequential losses to which that condition contributed.
3. Loss of earnings and pension. The medical condition existing when the claimant stopped work was the cumulative result of the three accidents. The fact that the third accident triggered the situation, and that the first two accidents alone might not have caused her to resign, did not make the third accident the sole cause. Applying the material-contribution approach reflected in Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw and McGhee v National Coal Board, each defendant was liable for the resulting loss.
4. Retirement date. The judge was entitled to find that the claimant would have continued working until age 60. The relevant assessment concerned when this claimant was likely to retire, not when teachers or deputy head teachers generally retired. Her evidence that she wished to work until 60 provided a sufficient basis for the factual finding.
5. Lord Justice Clarke agreed, summarising that each breach materially contributed both to the chronic pain state and to the resulting loss of earnings and pension. The Vice-Chancellor agreed with Lord Justice Kay’s reasons.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2003] EWCA Civ 647, the appeals by the first and second defendants were dismissed.
2. Reading County Court: His Honour Judge Elly held that the cumulative effect of the three accidents caused the claimant’s chronic pain state and that all three defendants were liable for the resulting loss. He assessed responsibility between them at 30%, 30% and 40%.