Case Analysis

Case Analysis of Adams v. Naylor

By

Adams v Naylor[1]

Structure

Facts

In August 1942, three boys, Robert Adams (12), Charles Adams (13), and Frank Smith (13), were playing on sandhills near Crosby and Southport along the Lancashire coast. The area had been made into a minefield by military authorities in 1941 as a defense against potential invasion. The minefield was fenced off with a six-foot-high fence topped with barbed wire coils, and warning notices were posted every hundred yards. However, sand had shifted, burying parts of the fence and obscuring some warning signs. While playing, Frank Smith accidentally set off a buried mine while retrieving a tennis ball, resulting in his immediate death and severe injury to Robert Adams.

Issues

Whether the Respondent is liable while conducting activity sanctioned by the sovereign.

Judgment

Viscount Simon, L.J.

  1. It was found that death came under war injuries as per the relevant provisions. The mine was being used in combating the enemy and the injuries were war injuries caused by this use.
  2. The activity of placing landmine was for the defence of the country and the respondent was empowered by the Crown to do as sovereifn function.
  3. For the plaintiffs to succeed, apart from the statute, they must prove that the defendant himself owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs and has failed in discharging that duty.

Lord Thankerton, L.J.

It is beyond doubt that no claim in tort will lie against the Crown in respect of a wrongful act done by its servants in the performance or supposed performance of their duty; the only remedy, if any, must be against the person who committed the wrongful act as personally liable.

Lord Porter, L.J.

The decision of Lord Simons and Lord Thankerton is agreed upon and result is concurred.

Disposition: In favour of Respondent

Held, that the mines were being used “in combating the enemy” and, accordingly, the injuries sustained were “war injuries,” so damages were not recoverable.

Where an action in respect of a tort is brought against a servant of the Crown, the issues to be tried are those between the parties and the court is not concerned with the fact that the Crown, which is not a party, may stand behind the defendant.

 

[1] Adams v. Naylor, [1946] A.C. 543

Related posts