This review of personal injury developments from 1993 concludes with cases including actions against the police, negligence and damages.DamagesIn Mughal v Reuters [1993] The Times, 28 October, Judge Prosser QC held that repetitive strain injury (RSI) was not a condition known to medical science - it had no identifiable pathology and no existence as a clinical condition.In Fish v Wilcox [1993] The Times, 4 March, the Court of Appeal held that where a mother was looking after her handicapped child and was entitled to compensation in respect of the value of that care, she was not entitled to claim for her loss of earnings on top of that sum.

Stuart-Smith LJ said: 'She was not entitled to make a profit out of her claim or to be compensated for doing two jobs.'In Hunt v Severs [1993] 4 All ER 180, the plaintiff was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant.

She subsequently married the defendant.

He provided many of the services which she required and which he would otherwise have had to pay for.

It was argued that since he had provided those services voluntarily, he should not be required to pay damages representing the value of those services as well.The Court of Appeal held that there were good policy reasons for not denying recoverability.

Bingham MR said: 'Where services are voluntarily rendered by a tortfeasor in caring for the plaintiff from motives of affection or duty, they should be regarded as in the same category as services rendered voluntarily by a third party, or charitable gifts or insurance payments.

They are adventitious benefits which for policy reasons are not to be regarded as diminishing the plaintiff's loss.'In Allen v Bloomsbury [1993] 1 All ER 651, Brooke J reviewed the various cases dealing with the assessment of damages in the context of actions for failed abortions and faile d sterilisation.

He said in terms that in assessing future costs, it was appropriate to award a sum covering the future cost of private education where the unplanned child had been born into a family which normally sent its children to fee-paying schools.

Finally, in AB v South West Water [1993] 1 All ER 609, the Court of Appeal very firmly ruled that claims in negligence or public nuisance would not support a claim for exemplary damages.NegligenceIn Morrell v Owen [1993] The Times, 14 December, it was held that the duty of care (really the standard of care and discharge of the duty) owed by the organisers of a sporting event for the disabled was greater than would be the case for an organiser of a similar event for the able-bodied.In Woolger v West Surrey and North East Hampshire Health Authority [1993] The Times, 8 November, it was held that the method by which a properly trained nurse lifted a patient was a matter for that nurse's individual judgment.

Accordingly the employing hospital was not in breach of duty by not warning her against the use of a method which caused her back injury.

(Query: Would there be a duty to warn when they knew that she was persistently adopting an unsafe lifting technique?)In Adams v Southern Electricity [1993] The Times, 21 November, an anti-climbing device fitted to an electricity pylon was defective.

The plaintiff was a 15-year-old boy who climbed the pylon, and came into contact with the transformer.

The board was held liable, albeit that the plaintiff was found to be two-thirds to blame.In Knowles v Liverpool City Council [1993] 4 All ER 321, the House of Lords held that s.1(1) of the Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 was to be widely construed and embraced every article of whatsoever kind furnished by the employer for the purpose of the business and not merely articles furnished for the use of employees.

Hence a flagstone was equipment within the meaning of the Act.Macfarlane v Caledonia [1993] The Times, 30 September, provides an illustration of the working out of the nervous shock doctrine after the Hillsbrough litigation.

The plaintiff was a bystander on a boat which was engaged in rescue activities in connection with the Piper Alpha disaster.

He alleged that he had suffered psychiatric damage because of his proximity to the disaster and his ensuing state of fear.

His claim failed.Stuart-Smith LJ said: 'Both as a matter of principle and policy, the court should not extend a duty of care to those who were mere bystanders or witnesses of horrific events unless there was a sufficient degree of proximity which required both nearness in time and place and a close relationship of love and affection between plaintiff and victim.'In Topp v London Bus [1993] 2 All ER 448, the plaintiff's wife was killed when someone took a bus belonging to the defendants which had been left unattended with its key in the ignition for nine hours outside a public house.

It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendants were under a duty to ensure that they did not create a source of danger on the public highway and that this duty extended to taking precautions against the wrongdoing of third parties.In a striking application of the Caparo approach, namely that 'forseeability is not enough', the judge held that in all the circumstances 'it would not be fair, just and reasonable' to recognise the duty of care contended for.

Another Caparo element, namely the absence of an existing category of relationship giving rise to a duty of care, was also operative here, n amely that this claim was not within such an existing category.On Wright v Lodge [1993] 4 All ER 299, it was decided that although X might have been negligent in parking where she did, the effect of that negligence could be entirely obliterated by the subsequent reckless driving of the defendant which would be regarded as the substantive cause of the subsequent accident.

The reckless driving constituted a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation between the initial negligence and the subsequent accident.Actions against the policeThree decisions reported in 1993 confirm that on public policy grounds the police are largely immune from actions based upon their alleged negligence in carrying out their operational duties.

In Ancell v McDermott [1993] 4 All ER 355, the police were aware of diesel on the highway: the plaintiff's wife's car skidded on the diesel and collided with a lorry, killing her.

It was held that the police held no duty to protect or warn motorists in respect of hazards discovered by them in the course of their work.

There was no duty of care and, in any event, it would be against public policy to impose such a duty.In Osmond v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344, it was held that although there was a close proximity between the plaintiff and the police amounting to a 'special relationship' nevertheless, public policy dictated that there could be no liability to individuals arising out of such special relationship.In Alexandrou v Oxford [1993] 4 All ER 328, police officers who had attended the scene of a burglary did not properly examine the rear of the premises thereby (so it was alleged) enabling the burglars to come back later and steal things.

The action by the aggrieved shopkeeper was dismissed: no duty of care was owed and such claims were against public policy in any event.

-- POSTSCRIPTI think that I was wrong in suggesting that Horngold v Fairclough remains an important decision (see [1994] Gazette, 20 April, 21).

In fact, a closer reading of the speech of Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Mungovin indicates that, in all probability, the case is not to be relied upon in relation to the question of proving prejudice.