Case Study of T Knight Group and the Knight Plaza Building Tort Cases

Rahim Khan v. Knight Plaza Building, T Knight Group

The case of Mr Khan is a complex one as; it is true that negligence of fixing the Knight Plaza building’s design and structure has led to a decrease in customers at Mr Khan’s shop. However, Mr Khan is already being persecuted for trespassing on the Knight Plaza Building and caught on CCTV camera throwing stones through the building’s windows, which has led to £75,000 of damage. Based on the case, the disturbance of light and the product of heat from the building’s structure causes Mr Khan to lose £50 per day. Mr Khan could have made a claim under Tort law for negligence as well as tortious interference of business. Clearly, the light is affecting the incoming of potential customers to Mr Khan’s sandwich shop. According to tortuous interference principles, it is an occurrence when a person intentionally damages the claimant’s contractual or business relationships (Turner, 2010). Tortuous interference of business relationships or activities is irrespective of whether they are involved in a contract.

According to the scenario, the T Knight Group was aware of the light issues caused by the building. However, no efforts were taken to repair or minimize the disturbance. Therefore, the defendant can be termed as intentionally leaving the premises in error. The light reflecting on the building projects onto the pavement outside of the claimant’s shop. Although it is not a direct interference, the resultant light drives customers away who are avoiding the heat and light by avoiding his shop altogether. Such a claimant can be made as it was evident from the case Keeble v Hickeringill [1706][10], which was styled as a trespass on the case. It was described that the actionable conduct was not directly driving prospective customers away but rather eliminating the subject matter of the prospective business. It was concluded by Justice Holt, that he that hinders another in his trade or livelihood is liable. Hence, it could have been applied in Mr Khan’s case.

However, Mr Khan had clearly trespassed on the Plaza area along with causing property damage to the Plaza. Even though, direct presence of Mr Khan is not considered to be a trespasser as the Plaza is a commercial building and located in a publicly administered area, which permits Mr Khan to be on the land. However, Mr Khan did portray abusive behaviour by throwing stones and damaging the building, making Mr Khan liable for trespass as seen in Field Common Ltd v Elmbridge [2008][11]. It was held that the continued presence of the tarmac over the claimants land constituted trespass. Thus, the principle of Trespass ab initio can be applied; as it asserts that lawful entry becomes an actionable trespass if the defendant abuses their permission to enter the land (Elliott & Quinn, 2013 as seen in the case of League Against Cruel Sports v Scott and others [1986][12]. If Mr Khan claims negligence and tortious interference, the defendants, T Knight Group, can either absolve themselves from full or partial liability for damages using the principle of illegality. This asserts that if the claimant is involved in wrongdoing at the time of the alleged negligence occurrence, this may extinguish or reduce the defendant’s liability.

Shaz Logistics & Chapple, D. v. Knight Plaza Building, T Knight Group; Pandy, A. v. Knight Plaza Building, T Knight Group; Pandy, M. & Ahmed, M. v. Knight Plaza Building, T Knight Group

For this specific group of cases, powerful winds became the incidental element that had led to a series of personal injuries and property damage. The scenario describes a lorry, which was owned by Shaz Logistics and driven by Darran Chapple. Toppling over from a gust of strong wind resulted in pedestrian Andy Pandy’s death, a pedestrian. Andy’s death led witnesses Mandy, their sister, and Muz Ahmed, friend and co-worker to be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There is evidence that directly links the Knight Plaza building’s design and structure to the series of accidents. Police scientific investigators have concluded that the side of the building’s concave shape acts as a centrifuge which speeds up the wind, resulting in it having a hurricane-like strength. The main predicament of this scenario is establishing liability. Does it belong to Shaz Logistics’ driver or T Knight Group, owner of the building? Shaz Logistics and Darran Chapple should not be liable for the series of accidents that had ensued. The main liability belongs to the building’s owners as its design is the main reason that generated a high enough speed, which physically altered the direction of the lorry, causing it to topple over.

Shaz Logistics and Darran Chapple are non-liable based on the premises set from Mansfield v Weetabix (1997)[13]. Defendants were the owner of a lorry. Their driver had suffered from a malignant insulinoma resulting in him being in a hyperglycemic state, and the driver was unaware of the condition. This caused the driver to crash into the claimant’s shop, causing damages. However, it was asserted that the driver was not in breach of duty, and his actions did not fall below the standard of care required. Therefore, it was held that the driver or the company was not at fault. Furthermore the case Counihan and another v Dublin Bus and another [2005][14] This can be applied to the present scenario as well as Roberts and other v Ramsbottom [1980][15] in which it was held that action for negligence was through no fault of the drive as he was unable to control his vehicle properly, the defendant as not liable. The standard of care that a driver is obliged to be is expected of a reasonably competent driver. Obviously, Darran Chapple was unaware of the strong winds that the building centrifuged and was reasonably unaware of its effect on his driving. Thus, Shaz Logistics and driver Mr Chapple cannot be liable for the death of Andy Pandy, as applied in cases of Hill v Baxter [1958][16] and Watmore v Jenkins [1962][17]. However, T Knight Group is liable for the damages of the lorry and the injuries that may have been sustained by Mr Chapple as the cause of the accident related to the design of the building. Furthermore, the driver nor the company is liable for the mental distress that came upon the witnesses, Mandy Pandy or Muz Ahmed.

The negligence of T Knight Group, which resulted in the reasonably foreseeable consequence, impacted the accident’s witnesses to develop PTSD. Under the case of McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983)[18], the claimant was allotted compensation from the defendant due to the development of severe nervous shock caused by an accident that injured claimant’s family. Although the claimant was not present at the accident, it was considered that the condition that developed was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence. The same concept can be applied to the current scenario as the negligence of T Knight Group led to the accident which was witnessed by Mandy and Muz which led to the development of a mental illness that was reasonably foreseeable; also applied in deciding Hussain v Chief Constable of West Constabulary[19] and. Donachie v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police [2004][20] can also be applied to this scenario as it had established that reasonable foreseeability had been established whether for physical or psychiatric injury or both, it was immaterial for foreseeable injury caused had been caused directly or through another form of injury not reasonably foreseeable.

The case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992][21] is applied to Mandy and Muz using the Alcock test to establish liability. Since both were secondary victims,  it needs to be established if they had ties of love and affection to Andy’s primary victim. Mandy was the sister of Andy, who already implies love and affection while Muz, on the other hand, was a close friend who also proves that there was a relationship of love and affection. The next two premises of the test are; the witness of the event with their own unaided senses and proximity to the event itself or its immediate aftermath. These two premises were also fulfilled with Mandy and Muz as both witnessed the event with their own eyes and were on the block opposite to when the lorry collapsed on Andy. The resultant was the development of PTSD, which was caused by witnessing the shocking event; thus fulfilling the Alcock test’s last criteria.

Andy Mandy, being crushed by the lorry, is due to the negligence of the defendant. The accident had resulted in wrongful death as the defendant’s acts and omissions were the proximate cause of Andy’s injuries and death which is evident from the case Davoren v Health Services Executive/Western Area and others [2011][22]. The defendant’s had created a natural and direct series of events that led to Andy’s injury and ultimate death due to the breach of duty being the material cause of the injury. This is evident in the cases of McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] [23]and Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002][24] in which the Lords had held that where a breach of duty has a material effect on the likelihood of injury, then the subsequent injury will be said to have been caused by the breach  Even though, the victim Andy, who may have died can still be compensated which has been outlined in the Fatal Accidents Act of 1976, by the person entitled to bring an action for bereavement, such as a spouse, parents (if legitimate), and mother (if illegitimate); sections 1, 1A, and section 2.