Flashcards
Sem título
Flashcards do conjunto (16)
- 1Baker v Willoughby [1970] (Multiple causation: where more than one tortfeasor causes the injury to C, who is liable, and for what?)Facts:D negligently injured C’s leg, disabling him. Later, he was shot in same leg during robbery and leg was amputated. Policy – causal connection found between D’s negligence and C’s disability after operation, otherwise C would receive less compensation than he deserved. No practical difference between permanently disabled leg and artificial one. Robber not found and probably “man of straw” anyway.The defendant ran over the claimant’s leg, causing permanent compensable injury
Before the trial, the claimant was shot in the same leg by a criminal which then required amputation
Ratio: Was the defendant absolved from liability at the time of the shooting? No The driver continued to be liable as if the shooting had never occurred
Decision: The defendant remained liable for the loss of amenity and lower earning capacity even after the amputation. - 2Cutler v Vauxhall Motors [1974] (Multiple causation: where more than one tortfeasor causes the injury to C, who is liable, and for what? )Facts: D negligently injured C’s leg. Injury caused ulcer. C suffered from varicose veins, so immediate operation necessary. Claimed damages from D for pain & discomfort of operation. Since C would have probably needed similar operation within 5 years, D’s negligence not cause of operation.
- 3Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] (Multiple causation: where more than one tortfeasor causes the injury to C, who is liable, and for what? )Facts: D negligently injured C’s back, reducing his earning capacity by 50%. C then developed unrelated spinal disease (myelopathy) and was unable to work at all.
Mr Jobling, a butcher, slipped on the floor at his place of work due to his employer's negligence. He injured his back which caused him to reduce his earning capacity to 50% of what it was. He then developed an independent back condition which was unrelated to the injury which left him unable to work. The trial judge applied Baker v Willoughby and held that the claimant was entitled to recover damages beyond the onset to the back condition. The employer appealed.
Ratio: The House of Lords distinguished Baker v Willoughby and stated where the victim is overtaken before trial by a wholly unconnected and disabling illness, the decision had no application. The House of Lords were critical of the decision in Baker v Willoughby but stopped short of overruling it.
Decision:D liable only to point where C became unable to work. Unlike Baker, supervening event was a natural, rather than a tortious, one. - 4Cook v Lewis [1952] (Multiple causation: where more than one tortfeasor causes the injury to C, who is liable, and for what? )Facts: C accidentally shot by D or his companion, while grouse-shooting. Both could be liable.
Plaintiff (Lewis) shot in the face by one of two hunters (Cook) that shot at the same time. Lewis could not prove which one. Should the "but for" test applied, or whether the "material contribution" test applied? Are either satisfied?
Ratio: (1) If the plaintiff can prove that the two defendants were negligent (one had to have caused his loss) and it is impossible to prove which one, then the burden of proving causation shifts to the defendants.
(2) there is no joint tortfeasance when two parties are engaged in a lawful common enterprise, and it is proven that one of them caused harm in their actions but it cannot be proven which party actually did it, unless there are special circumstances of agency in the parties' relationship (e.g. master and servant
Decision:Referred to by Lord Hoffmann in Fairchild: one hunter liable for injury he didn’t commit, but injustice outweighed by possibility that C should receive no recompense even though one of the hunters injured him. - 5Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] (Multiple causation: where more than one tortfeasor causes the injury to C, who is liable, and for what? )C stepped in to road and hit by 1st D, driving negligently. This propelled C into path of 2nd D, also driving negligently. Both Ds equally liable (although contributory negligence applied: C received only 50% damages in H of L
- 6Knightley v Johns [1982] (Novus Actus Interveniens. A new, intervening act, which breaks the chain of causation)Facts: D caused accident in one-way tunnel. Police inspector failed to close entrance to tunnel. C, constable, rode on motor-bike to close entrance: hit by car. Inspector had been negligent. Common sense would show what was foreseeable. Inspector’s negligence was a new cause, not a concurrent one. It broke chain of causation.
Ratio:The senior officer's instructions and failure to close the entrance to the tunnel were negligent and broke the chain of causation. The claimant's decision in going through the tunnel was not negligent.
Decision: Thus the claimant was entitled to full damages from the senior officer and Mr John was not liable. - 7Scott v Shepherd [1773] (If intervening act is foreseeable, unlikely to break chain of causation.)D threw lighted squib into market place. Landed on X’s stall. X threw it onto Y’s stall. Y threw it off his stall. Exploded in C’s face, blinding him in one eye. Unbroken chain of causation. D liable.
- 8Wright v Lodge [1993] (Novus Actus Interveniens)1st D’s car broke down on unlit dual carriageway. 2nd D, lorry-driver, driving too fast, crashed into 1st D’s car, skidded across carriageway, injuring C, passenger in another car. 1st D not liable because 2nd D not merely negligent, but reckless: broke chain of causation.
- 9Lamb v Camden LBC (Novus Actus Interveniens)D negligently broke water main, flooding C’s house. C had to vacate house for repairs, and squatters broke in and caused damage. Squatters not foreseeable to D, therefore no liability.
- 10Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]D owned derelict cinema. Vandals broke in, caused fire which damaged adjoining property, owned by C. D not liable, as they didn’t know of earlier acts of vandalism, so no duty owed to C. Dealt with by reference to duty, rather than causation.
- 11Stansbie v Troman [1948]D employed as decorator by C. Told to lock door if he went out. Failed to do this and thief stole C’s property. D liable as thief didn’t break chain of causation.
- 12McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] (Intervening act of claimant)Facts: D negligently injured C’s leg. C attempted to descend steep staircase with no handrail. Leg gave way. C broke ankle in fall. D not liable, as C’s unreasonable conduct broke chain of causation. The claimant sustained an injury at work due to his employer's breach of duty. He strained his back and hips and his leg was prone to giving way. Whilst in this state he attempted to climb down a steep concrete staircase without a handrail unaided. He got part way down and felt his leg give way so he jumped 10 steps to the bottom. He suffered a fractured right ankle and was also left with a permanent disability. The defendant accepted liability for the injury sustained during his employment but disputed liability for the second injuries resulting from the claimant's action in jumping down the stairs.
Ratio:The claimant's action amounted to a novus actus interveniens because his action in attempting to climb the steps unaided knowing that his leg might give way was unreasonable.
Decision:The defendant was therefore not liable for the injuries resulting from the incident on the stairs - 13Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd [1969] (Intervening act of claimant)Facts: D negligently injured C’s neck, and had to wear surgical collar as result. Couldn’t see properly through bifocal spectacles when wearing collar. Fell down stairs and injured.
Ratio: Eveleigh J gave an account of the meaning in law of forseeability, saying: ‘In the present case I am concerned with the extent of harm suffered by the plaintiff as a result of actionable injury. In my view the injury and damage suffered because of the second fall are attributable to the original negligence of the defendant so as to attract compensation. If necessary I think the plaintiff’s case can also be put against the defendant in another way. If it can be said that it is foreseeable that one injury may affect a person’s ability to cope with the vicissitudes of life and thereby be a cause of another injury and if foreseeability is required, that is to say, if foreseeability is the right word in this context, foreseeability of the general nature will, in my view, suffice.’
Decision: D liable - 14Sayers v Harlow UDC [1958] (Dilemma principle)C injured, trying to escape from locked lavatory cubicle in which she was trapped. Since put into dilemma by D, actions not unreasonable. Chain of causation not broken, but damages reduced for contributory negligence.
- 15Kirkham v CC Greater Manchester Police [1990]D liable for suicide of C’s husband at remand centre. Failed to inform authorities he was high suicide risk. Suicide not novus actus, as his mind was disturbed and incapable of making rational decision. Police aware of this, so chain of causation intact.
- 16Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999]Artificial distinction in suicide cases between “sound” and “unsound” mind. Here, trial judge held C was of sound mind when he hanged himself in police custody. But H of L held police had duty to guard against suicides in their custody. So no break in chain of causation and D liable.
Informações
- Descrição
- Law FlashCards sobre Sem título, criado por Kirsty Dcosta em 17-11-2016.
- Criado por
- Kirsty Dcosta
- Visualizações
- 0
- Avaliação