Limitations of Time

Introduction
The present limitation period are mainly to be founded in the
limitation act 1980 (as amended by the latent Damage Act 1986
and by the Consumer Protection Act 1987). The basic principal is
that actions in tort are subjected to limitation period of six years
from the date on which the cause of action accrue. if the potential
claimant was not at least 18 or did not have a sound mind at the
time of accrual of action , time will not run until he is at least 18
and has a sound mind, where there has been fraud or
concealment , or the action is for relief from the consequences of
the mistake, time will not run until the fraud, concealment or
mistake is discovered or could with reasonable diligence be
discovered.
Negligence claims (other than personal injury) must be brought
within six years from damage occurring, or three years from when
the claimant knew/ought to have known of it. Personal injury
claims must be brought within three years of the damage, or of
the claimant knowing they might have a claim. The courts have
discretion to extend this limit
Law Society V Sephton & Co(2006)
The case has arose after the solicitors ruling body, the law
Society, runs a scheme to compensate clients. The Law society
had believed this happened due to the negligence that allowed
the solicitor to take the money, due to this the firm was sued to
get back the compensation that they had paid. But the defendant
had argued that the money was taken before three years when
society was sued. So due to this the action is outside the time
limits. However, the society argued that relevant date was not
when the money was taken, but when the client claimed against
them. So the house of loads agreed that the money was taken it
become possibility that society would suffer loss if a claim was
made to their compensation scheme, but at the point there was
no actual loss. The money could have been repaid in some other
way, or the client might not have claimed anyway. The time limit
will only began to run when an actual loss occurred, which was
when client made the claim to compensation scheme.
Accidents

With accident compensation being a fault-based system, in order

to trigger entitlement to compensation resulting from a car
accident, it is necessary to demonstrate legal fault by the other
driver. The fault is often referred to as negligence which is
momentary carelessness and does not need to be the higher type
of fault relevant to criminal cases
When an injury is caused to a person by an event that could not
be foreseen and avoided despite reasonable care on the part of
the defendant, the defense of inevitable accident can be used. For
instance, by inevitable' it is not meant that the accident was
bound to happen, but rather, that the accident could not have
been avoided despite reasonable care. After all, how can a person
be blamed for something that he had no control whatsoever over
or could not prevent? For example, a situation where the defense
could not be used is that of a person who, while trying to separate
two people fighting, hits another person accidentally. Here the
injury is negligence and no negligence is involved.

Boomer v. Penn

The Defendant in the case of Boomer v. Penn claimed that he

suffered an unexpected insulin reaction and abnormally low blood
sugar which compromised his awareness and ability to drive. The
Court found it difficult to believe that a motorist who suffered a
sudden diabetic seizure could have driven as far as the Defendant
did in that case. The Defendant admitted he had experienced
similar reactions in the past which he remedied by taking sugar.
The Defendant was found negligent for not having his sugar with
him while driving when he was fully aware of his condition and the
consequences of having low blood sugar. The Court also found
that if he had his sugar with him, he may have had the
opportunity to ingest it prior to the collision which may have
resolved his condition and possibly prevented the accident.

If a driver suffers a sudden stroke or heart attack and had no

health history that would indicate such a risk, the Court may rule
differently.

Rintoul v. X-Ray and Radium Industries Ltd.

the Defendant attributed the accident to a sudden failure of the

vehicles brakes. The Court found the Defendant liable as there
was no evidence that the vehicle was properly maintained or
inspected prior to the accident. Further, there was no evidence to
explain why the brakes which were working properly
immediately before and after the accident failed momentarily at
the time of the accident. Last, the Court found that the
emergency hand brake was not in good working order, which
prevented the Defendant from bringing the vehicle to a stop and
may have otherwise allowed him to avoid the collision.

Although commonly plead, the defence of inevitable accident

places a heavy burden on the Defendant and will only succeed in
circumstances where the events eliminate any reasonable
opportunity for the driver to respond and are truly unforeseeable.