Facts
In Letang v. Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232, the plaintiff, Letang, was on holiday in Cornwall and was sunbathing on a patch of grass in the hotel grounds, which also served as a car park. The defendant, Cooper, drove his Jaguar motor car over her legs, not noticing her presence. More than three years later, Letang sued Cooper for damages in negligence and trespass. She argued that actions for negligence were statute-barred after three years, but actions for trespass to the person were statute-barred only after six years.
Issue
The key issue was whether the action was statute-barred. The court needed to define the appropriate cause of action in light of the different time limitations for negligence and trespass.
Holding
The court held that the only applicable cause of action for unintentional injury was negligence, and as such, it was statute-barred under the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions, etc) Act 1954. Furthermore, the Act covered all tortious breaches, including trespass.
Lord Denning clarified:
“Instead of dividing actions for personal injuries into trespass (direct damage) or case (consequential damage), we divide the causes of action now according as the defendant did the injury intentionally or unintentionally. … If he does not inflict injury intentionally, but only unintentionally, the plaintiff has no cause of action today in trespass” (at QB 239).
![Case Brief: Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728](https://superlawgh.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Carefully-drafted-case-briefs-to-make-understanding-the-law-simpler-and-more-efficient-1024x1024.jpg)
