Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
38 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What are the general rules about causation? (4) |
It is essential. The breach must cause the damage. Must be evidential and factual. Does not need to be beyond all reasonable doubt, just must be the greatest probability. |
|
|
What are the two types of causation? |
Factual. Legal. |
|
|
What is factual causation? |
Did D cause C's harm. Must have a link between what D did and the damaged caused. |
|
|
What is the original test for factual causation and what case outlines this? |
But for test: but for D's actions, would C have been harmed. Barnett. |
|
|
What happened in the case of Barnett? |
Duty of care and breach, but C would have died anyway so D's negligence did not cause the harm. |
|
|
What happened with the case of Robinson and the but for test? |
The injection had caused the brainswell, but C would not have needed the injection if the employer had not been negligent so they did cause the harm. |
|
|
What are the issues with the but for test? |
Cannot know for sure what would have happened without the breach. Does not deal with multiple potential causes. |
|
|
What are the two sub tests for multiple possible causes and the cases to support them? |
Did the breach increase the risk or make it more likely? (McGhee). Did the breach contribute to the harm or make it substantially worse? (Bonnington). |
|
|
Does the cause have to be the main cause? |
Does not have to be the main of sole cause. Must materially affect the damage. Must be substantial (50% likelihood or more). |
|
|
What happened in the case of McGhee? |
Dust unavoidable. No facilities to wash of the dust so it is on the skin for longer. Makes the harm more likely and increases the risk of harm. |
|
|
What happened in the case of Bonnington? |
2 types of dust made C severely ill. Employer could have prevented one type but not the other. Inhaled twice as much dust so made harm substantially worse. |
|
|
How did the case of Wilsher differ to McGhee and Bonnington? |
Multiple causes of the harm not just multiple sources. No evidence showing which of the 6 causes caused the harm. |
|
|
What are the two questions to be asked when there are multiple causes? |
Was the cause more likely to be the cause than everything else together? Was the cause more likely than any other singular cause. |
|
|
What happened in the case of Fairchild? |
Harm could have been caused by any employer over 30 years. HoL took novel approach using McGhee. Each employer materially increased the risk. Longer employment owed more compensation. |
|
|
What is the rule surrounding supervening causes of harm? |
Supervening illnesses seemed to obliterate the effects of the previous tort (Jobling). Supervening torts do not seem to obliterate the effects of the previous tort (Baker). |
|
|
What case outlines that there is generally no claim for loss of chance? |
Hotson. |
|
|
What case supports that there is no liability for loss of chance but suggested there could be in the future? |
Gregg. |
|
|
What are the tests for legal causation? |
Was the harm reasonably foreseeable? Was the harm too remote from D's actions? |
|
|
What could make the negligence not a cause of the harm? |
Intervening act. |
|
|
What is the test for remoteness and what case supports this? |
If the damage suffered is not foreseeable then it is too remote. Even if the extent of the damage or the way it occurred is not foreseeable. Wagon Mound No 1. |
|
|
What case showed that the damage was remote as it was not foreseeable? |
Pike. |
|
|
What is the eggshell skull rule and was case outlines this? |
D must take their victim as they find them. D cannot claim that the damage would have been less severe without C's susceptibility. Leech Brain Co. |
|
|
What happened in the case of Robinson about the eggshell skull rule? |
Could it avoid liability because C reacted to the injection when not everyone else would. |
|
|
What case outlines that D must take the victim as they find them for mental health issues also? |
Page. |
|
|
What type of intervening acts could break the chain of causation? |
Act of the claimant. Act of a third party. Act of nature. |
|
|
What is the general rule about the intervening act of a claimant? |
The act could break the causal chain if the act is unreasonable and voluntary. |
|
|
In what case was the act of the claimant so unreasonable that he broke the chain of causation? |
McKew. |
|
|
What are the general rules regarding suicide and an intervening act? |
Suicide could break the chain of causation where it was an informed and voluntary decision of C. |
|
|
What case outlines that suicide would not break the chain of causation where it was a result of the initial injury? |
Corr. |
|
|
What happened in the case of Reeves regarding an intervening act of suicide? |
The police have a duty to protect inmates from suicide so the novus actus interveniens argument did not work. |
|
|
What are the three types of intervening acts of third parties and what are the general rules for them? |
Innocent act by a third party: not likely to break the chain of causation. Negligent act by a third party: may break the chain of causation. Criminal act by a third party: probably will break the chain of causation. |
|
|
What case shows the negligent act of third-party not breaking the chase? |
Bettany. |
|
|
What case shows a negligent act of a third party breaking the chain and why? |
Johns. The negligence was a deliberate act not an error and was not a natural and probable consequence of D's negligence. |
|
|
What does the case of website about the negligence of a third party when the third party is a medical professional? |
When the medical treatment is needed because of the negligence of the defendant's negligence in the medical treatment does not usually break the chain. The treatment would have to be grossly negligent to break the chain. |
|
|
What case shows that criminal acts by a third party will normally break the chain of causation? |
Lamb. |
|
|
What case is an exception to the rule that criminal acts by a third party will normally break the chain of causation and why? |
Dorset Yacht. The police had a role of supervision over the third party. |
|
|
What is a case about an intervening act of nature? |
Carslogie Steamship. The storm caused damage. |
|
|
What case shows that a heat of the moment act will not break the chain of causation? |
Shepherd. |
