Flashcards
Factual Causation
Cards in this deck (11)
- 1Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]F: drank tea with arsenic poisoning. Went to the doctor but he turned him away. Died after went back home.
H: Claimed failed. But for the doctor's negligence, Barnett would have died anyway. - 2Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988]F: doctor negligently administered excessive oxygen to a baby, causing him blindness & brain damage, but medical science suggested there are 4 other factors that could have caused the same injury.
H: Claim failed. couldn't prove the negligence was more probable than not rather than the other 4 factors. - 3Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987]F: Doctor failed to diagnose the correct condition & turned C away. but did diagnose him a few days later & treated him appropriately. This delay caused permanent disability in C's head.
H: Claim failed. 75% he would have suffered from it even though no negligence. - 4Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956]F: C was exposed to both 'guilty' and 'innocent' SILICA DUST, over time he developed pneumoconiosis (a lung cancer)
Q: However, couldn't prove 'guilty' dust is the sole cause. But for D's negligence, C would have developed lung cancer from the 'innocent' exposure
H: Claim succeed. When it is cumulative dieases, it is sufficient if D materially contributed to C's harm. - 5McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]F: BRICK DUST remained on C's skin due to lack of washing facilities, causing him to develop dermatitis (became 'guilty' after work).
Q: However, medical evidence only showed brick dust can cause dermatitis, but it is unsure HOW it cause dermatitis. If it is caused by accumulation, can rely on Bonnington. But if caused by single abrasion, cannot prove it is during work (guilty) or after work (innocent). if it is after work, But for D's negligence, C would have developed dermatitis from the 'innocent' exposure
H: Claim succeed. D materially increased the risk of harm is sufficient. - 6Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002]F: C exposed to ASBESTOS by several employers and developed mesothelioma
Q1: However, scientific evidence only showed mesothelioma is caused by asbestos, no agreement as to understanding of how it caused it.
Q2: It is impossible to prove which particular employer caused it. Even if anyone of them admitted negligence, they would argue but for his negligence, C would still have suffered because of another employer. If applied Wilsher, C couldn't prove anyone of them is more probable than not the cause than another employers.
H: Claim succeed. Followed McGhee - materially increased risk of harm. - 7Barker v Corus [2006]F: C exposed to ASBESTOS by two employers and himself (self-employed) and developed mesothelioma.
H: Claim succeed. Confirmed Fairchild & decided employer is liable to pay damages proportionate to the asbestos exposure he is responsible for - 8Sienkiewicz v Grief [2011]F: C exposed to ASBESTOS by one employer and naturally-occurring asbestos in the environment.
H: Claimed succeed. Applied Fairchild.
Lord Philip: Fairchild shall apply whenever court is dealing with diseases with scientific uncertainty as to how that disease was being caused.
Lord Brown: Fairchild shall apply specifically to mesothelioma cases. (MAJORITY VIEW!!) - 9BAE (Run Off) Ltd v Durham (The Trigger' Litigation) [2012]Lord Mance: there is a casual link, but it is weaker and broader than what law of negligence usually reuqires with a straightforward application of 'but for' test
- 10Baker v Willoughby [1970]F: C suffered from stiff leg caused by car accident, and had to change job to work in a bank. Before the case ends, due to a bank robbery, he had to amputate his leg.
H: HOL rejected CA's use of 'but for' test. D has to continue to pay for the stiff leg even though it has been amputated. - 11Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] (cf Baker)F: C suffered from damage to back due to workplace injury. Before the case ends, he contracted an unrelated back disease.
H: Court applied 'but for' test. D only have to pay for the injury suffered up to the time of the back injury.
Information
- Description
- Tort Law Flashcards on Factual Causation, created by Yee Woei Lee on 15/04/2017.
- Created by
- Yee Woei Lee
- Views
- 4
- Rating