Perrett v Collins & Ors [1998] EWCA Civ 884 (22 May 1998)

Perrett v Collins & Ors [1998] EWCA Civ 884 (22 May 1998)

The Second and Third Defendants, by inspecting and certifying the aircraft as airworthy, owed a duty of care in tort to the Plaintiff, a foreseeable passenger, because their actions created a foreseeable risk of personal injury, the statutory and regulatory scheme was designed to protect such persons, and established principles of negligence for personal injury apply. The arguments based on economic loss and lack of proximity are inapplicable; the relationship was sufficiently proximate and it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 884
Parties
Plaintiff/first Respondent: Anthony Perrett; First Defendant/second Respondent: Simon Collins; Second Defendant/first Appellant: Les Usherwood; Third Defendant/second Appellant: PFA (ULAIR) Limited (t/a Popular Flying Association)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Order on Preliminary Issue (duty of Care)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Statutory Duties, Regulatory Liability
Tort Law Aviation Law Negligence Duty of Care Personal Injury Product Liability Statutory Duties Regulatory Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Perrett

Plaintiff/first Respondent

Simon Collins

First Defendant/second Respondent

Les Usherwood

Second Defendant/first Appellant

PFA (ULAIR) Limited (t/a Popular Flying Association)

Third Defendant/second Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Order on Preliminary Issue (duty of Care)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second and Third Defendants (inspector and association) owed a duty of care in tort to the Plaintiff, a passenger injured in an aircraft crash, arising from their inspection and certification of airworthiness.

Ratio Decidendi

The Second and Third Defendants, by inspecting and certifying the aircraft as airworthy, owed a duty of care in tort to the Plaintiff, a foreseeable passenger, because their actions created a foreseeable risk of personal injury, the statutory and regulatory scheme was designed to protect such persons, and established principles of negligence for personal injury apply. The arguments based on economic loss and lack of proximity are inapplicable; the relationship was sufficiently proximate and it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision of Judge Hallgarten is affirmed; the Second and Third Defendants owed the Plaintiff a duty of care.