Return of company car after dismissal

[labman]

Re: Return of company car after dismissal

Did you have use of the vehicle for a time after it should have been returned?

Also, could you possibly answer post 11?

Thanks :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[wales01man]

Re: Return of company car after dismissal

was the car after the police seized it taken away on a recovery truck?

[charitynjw]

Re: Return of company car after dismissal

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Causation.php

Causation in tort law



Novus actus interveniens - Act of 3rd party

Where the new act is of a third party, the test is whether the act was foreseeable. If the act of the third party was foreseeable, the defendant remains liable and the chain of causation remains in tact. If the act of a third party is not foreseeable this will break the chain of causation and the defendant is not liable for the actions of the third party:

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 Case summary

The following case suggests a high degree of foresight is required:

Lamb v Camden LBC [1981] 2 All ER 408 - Case summary

Novus actus interveniens - Act of the claimant

Where the new intervening act is that of the claimant, the test is whether the claimant acted reasonably in the circumstances. If the claimant's actions are deemed reasonable the chain of causation remains in tact and the defendant is liable for the actions of the claimant. If, however, the claimant's actions are unreasonable in the circumstances the chain of causation is broken and the defendant is not liable for the actions of the claimant:

McKew v Holland [1969] 3 All ER 1621 Case summary



Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966 Case summary



Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360 Case summary