Karteikarten
Causation
Karten in diesem Stapel (31)
- 1Yorkshire Dale Steamship Co Ltd v Ministry of War TransportCausation is to be understood as by the man in the street.
- 2Cork v Kirby Maclean Ltd'But for' test on balance of probabilities.
- 3Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HospitalCare not given to arsenic poisoning patient. They would have died anyway. So fail but for test and no factual causation.
- 4Wilsher v Essex AHAA or B = Loss. Premature birth - blind - 5 possible causes only one tortious (excess oxygen.
But for test - had to establish 51% likely that was cause. Couldn't. - 5Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd & othersSeveral poss inde causes of a loss. Not poss to prove from evidence available. Then will fail EXCEPT:
- 6Hotson v E. Berks Health AuthFell from tree broke leg 75% risk of paralysis. But for failed as could only say 25% negligence. Appeal awarded 25% of claim - loss of chance argument
H of L rejected - causation should be based on damage caused not loss of chance. - 7Gregg v ScottMaj H of L rejected claim for loss of life expectancy caused by negligent failure to diagnose cancer.
- 8Allied Maples Group v Simmons & SimmonsLoss of chance argument is allowed for pure economic loss. Due to error by solicitor claimant unable to negotiate on contract.
- 9Bonnington Castings v WardlawMaterial contribution test - H of L.
Respiratory disease from dust. Some of expose was deemed to be natural consequence of work therefore non-tortious. Tortious + non-tortious = disease. Impossible to tell how much was from each. But for failed. More than negligible contribution. - 10Bailey v MODBrain damage 2 poss causes:
1. Natural progression of illness
2. Lack of care by defendant (tortious)
Applied Bennington test - appeal. - 11Dr Sido John v Central Manchester and Manc Childrens' Uni Hosp NHS Found TrustDoctrine of material contribution can be applied in med neg cases with multiple causes. Claimant could show that delay in treatment materially contributed to bran injury.
Material injury test not ltd to single agency (e.g. dust) causes. - 12Which test?1. No of potential causes each acting independently - Wilsher
2. Various potential causes work cumulatively together - might be willing to deviate from but for and use Bonningtons - material contribution. - 13McGhee v National Coal BoardDermatitis from brick dust. Part of it work (non-tortious) part due to being unable to wash off before travelling home. Couldn't est whether cumulative condition could have been from 1 off. H of L imposed liability as D breach = materially increased risk.
- 14Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd & OthersNo. of employers all exposed to asbestos. But for test failed at Appeal courts. - could not say which employer.
H of L - fairness and justice depart from 'but for' test and found all liable. - 15Sienkiwicz v GreifFound as Fairchild.
- 16Barker v Corus UKLiability should be apportioned according to each D's contribution to total risk of asbestos.
Reversed by s. 3 Compensation Act 2006 - 17Durham v BAISupreme court has confirmed that it is cancer itself not risk that = gist of the negligence action .
- 18Fitzgerald v Lane & PatelHit by one car, then another as crossing on a red light. Court couldn't say who had caused what injuries. So divided by three. Appeal altered to 25% Land and Patel
- 19Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd & OthersDisease case causation:
1. But for D's negligence C would not have suffered
2. If D not sole cause but attributable then liable on ground that breach 'material contribution'
3. If 1 and 2 don't work then if prove materially increased the risk - 20Novus Actus Interveniens1. Act of God/natural event
2. Act of 3P
3 Act of claimant. - 21Humber Oil Terminal Trustee Ltd v SivandTanker collided with dock during repair sea bed collapsed. Not novus acts as in realms of foreseeability.
- 22Meah v McCreamerInjury in RTC > Personality Disorder > criminal acts. Disorder linked to original tort so no broken chain of causation.
- 23Knightley v JohnsRoad accident followed by negligent police inspector. Chain broken by police.
- 24Scott v ShepherdIf 3P acted instinctively in heat of mo. then no break in chain of causation.
- 25Robinson v The Post OfficeInjured, given tetanus without allergy test first. Didn't break chain. No palpably wrong.
- 26Spencer v Wincanton Holdings LtdHalt liability is governed by fairness concept.
Point is reached when claimant suffers further injury which whilst it wouldn't have happened w/out initial has been brought about by claimant. - 27McKew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scottish)Claimant's unrble behaviour broke chain
- 28Wieland v Cyril Lord CarpetsClaimant acted rbly so did not break the chain.
- 29Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea Health AuthorityNegligent sterilisation > pregnancy. Refused to have abortion. This refusal does not break the chain.
5 law lords confirmed mother's decision not to terminate could not be nous actus. - 30Reeves v MPCDuty to ensure that prisoner did not take own life. Actions will not be treated as novus actus where duty of care requires D to stop C taking action.
- 31Corr v IBC VehiclesHead injury at work > MH issues> suicide 6 years later. Not a novus actus
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Tort Law Karteikarten am Causation , erstellt von Laura Millward am 18/11/2017.
- Erstellt von
- Laura Millward
- Aufrufe
- 1
- Bewertung