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.