e-lawresources.co.uk

A runs red light, hits a cyclist B. C swerves to avoid B, but runs over bike and as a result a piece of the bike flies and hits D on the road side. D mouth swells and cannot continue with an singing advertisement contracted by E. E has to pay booking and retention fee for the delay in recording costing them $200.

Who can sue who for damages and especially E.

A owes a duty of care to other road users and is in breach of duty by running the red light. He has caused any personal injury sustained by B under the but for test and the damage is of a kind which is foreseeable (Wagon Mound test viewtopic.php?f=76&t=280). In relation to the bicycle, but for A running the red light the bicycle would not have been damaged although there may be a novus actus interveniens of C. It was foreseeable that the bike could be run over so this is unlikely to break the chain of causation see HO v Dorset Yacht viewtopic.php?f=75&t=308 & Lamb v Camden viewtopic.php?f=75&t=309 unless C was in breach of duty See Knightly v Johns viewtopic.php?f=75&t=311

C also owes a duty of care to other road users, it depends on whether or not he is in breach of duty ie would a reasonable competent driver have been able to avoid running over the bike in the cirumstances see Nettleship v Weston viewtopic.php?f=74&t=323 . If there is a breach of duty then this would break the chain of causation from the liability of A for the bike if C is not found to be in breach of duty the chain is likely to remain in tact.

In relation to the injury suffered by D, A owes a duty to pedestrians in close proximity. The damage was caused by A assuming no breach of duty by C. The damage is of a kind that was foreseeable. So D can claim for the personal injury and related loss of earnings.

In terms of the loss suffered by E this was not a foreseeable kind of damage under the Wagon Mound test and there is no relationship of proximity nor is the loss reasonably foreseeable under the Caparo test viewtopic.php?f=73&t=7592 .

So B & D are likely to be able to claim from A and E is unlikely to succeed.