Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham [1961] EWCA Civ 3

A Rolls Royce requiring a £75 respray from a prior accident was subsequently hit by the defendant. This second impact also necessitated a respray. The court held the defendant was not liable as his action caused no additional loss.

Facts

The plaintiffs’ (Performance Cars Ltd) Rolls Royce Silver Cloud motor car was involved in a collision with a car driven by a Mr. F, who admitted liability. The damage sustained required a respray of the entire lower part of the body of the car, at an estimated cost of £75. Approximately two weeks later, before any repairs had been carried out, the defendant, Mr. Abraham, negligently drove his car into the front of the plaintiffs’ Rolls Royce. This second collision caused a minor dent and scratch which, if considered in isolation, would also have necessitated a respray of the lower body. The plaintiffs had not recovered the costs from the first driver and brought an action against the defendant for the £75 cost of the respray.

Issues

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was one of causation. Was the defendant liable to pay for the cost of a respray when that exact repair was already necessary as a result of a previous, separate tortious act? The question was whether the defendant’s negligence could be said to have caused the loss claimed, given the pre-existing state of the car.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the County Court judge’s decision that the defendant was not liable for the cost of the respray.

Lord Evershed M.R.

Lord Evershed M.R. applied the principle that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him (‘talem qualem’). In this case, the defendant ‘found’ a car that was already in a damaged state and required a complete respray of its lower half. The defendant’s collision did not create the need for this repair; the need already existed. Therefore, the defendant’s actions did not cause the loss for which the plaintiffs sought compensation.

In my judgment in the present case the defendant takes the motor car in the condition in which it was. In the condition in which he took it, it was a motor car which, as a result of the first collision, was in need of a respraying of the whole of the lower part of its body. The result of the defendant’s impact was to add another scratch. Let it be assumed that that scratch was one which, had the car been otherwise in perfect condition, would have itself required a respraying of the lower part of the body. In fact it did nothing of the kind. The plaintiffs have not had to expend on this car, on account of the defendant’s wrongdoing, a penny more than they would have had to expend if the defendant had never struck their car at all.

He concluded that since the defendant’s negligence had not caused any additional damage necessitating cost, the defendant could not be held liable for the existing damage.

Donovan L.J.

Donovan L.J. agreed, framing the issue in simple, practical terms. He reasoned that the second collision did not add to the damage in a way that increased the cost of repair. The requirement for the respray was already absolute before the defendant’s involvement.

The car at the time of the second collision was in such a state that it required a respray of its lower part at a cost of some £75: and that requirement was in no way increased or enlarged by the second collision, although the need for the respray might have been described as more urgent. The second collision, in other words, caused no damage which was not already there. All it did was to add another scratch to a car which was already in a condition in which it had to be resprayed in any event over a wide area.

Danckwerts L.J.

Danckwerts L.J. concurred with both judgments.

Implications

This case is a key authority on the issue of causation in the law of tort, particularly concerning successive torts affecting property. It establishes that where a second tortfeasor’s actions result in damage that is entirely subsumed by existing, unrepaired damage from a prior tort, the second tortfeasor is not liable for the cost of repair because they have not caused any additional loss. The decision underscores the principle that the aim of damages is to compensate for loss, not to punish the defendant. A claimant cannot be overcompensated by recovering money for the same item of loss from two different parties. The case is often contrasted with later cases like Baker v Willoughby, which dealt with successive injuries to a person, highlighting the different judicial approaches to concurrent causes affecting property versus personal injury.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The defendant, Mr. Abraham, was held not liable for the £75 cost of respraying the car.

Source: Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham [1961] EWCA Civ 3