판결 이유
Where personal injury is caused unintentionally, the appropriate cause of action is negligence, not trespass to the person. Trespass to the person should be confined to intentional acts.
사실관계
Mrs Letang was sunbathing on a piece of grass in a hotel car park. Cooper drove his car over her legs. She sued in trespass to the person (to avoid the limitation period for negligence, which had expired).
판결 요약
The Court of Appeal held that where personal injury is caused unintentionally, the only cause of action is negligence, not trespass to the person, so Mrs Letang's claim — brought in trespass to circumvent the expired three-year limitation period for personal-injury negligence — was statute-barred and failed. Lord Denning MR reasoned that the historic division of personal-injury actions into 'trespass' (for direct injury) and 'case' (for consequential injury) was outdated; the modern distinction should turn on the defendant's state of mind — trespass to the person is reserved for intentional conduct, while unintentional (careless) injury sounds only in negligence. Since Cooper had run over Mrs Letang's legs carelessly rather than deliberately, her claim lay in negligence and was governed by the negligence limitation period, which had run out. Diplock and Danckwerts LJJ agreed in the result. The case, with Fowler v Lanning, settled that trespass to the person now requires an intentional act.
주요 인용문
"Instead of dividing actions for personal injuries into trespass (direct damage) and case (consequential damage), we should divide them according to the nature of the defendant's act: was it intentional or negligent?"
— Lord Denning MR
후속 처리
Confirmed the modern approach: trespass for intentional conduct, negligence for unintentional.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help