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;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
There is no causation if it can be proved that the same result would have occurred but for the negligence |
Barnett |
|
|
If the die has already been cast before the negligence then a simple balance of probabilities test can solve causation |
Hotson |
|
|
In a divisible disease proof of material contribution can create liability |
Bonnington |
|
|
With a divisible disease the individual proportions can be found liable not joint and severably, based off duration of employment |
Holtby |
|
|
The principle of material contribution can apply even to indivisible cases |
Swift J in Jones v Secretary of State |
|
|
When medical science can't provide an answer to the but for test for an indivisible damage then the test is modified and material contribution is enough |
Bailey v MOD |
|
|
For material contribution to apply the D's contribution has to be concurrent with the non negligent cause and has to increase the magnitude and not merely the risk of harm |
Williams v Bermuda Hospital Board |
|
|
If there is a statutory duty of care to prevent something and it is breached and the thing happens the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the defendant to prove that he did not materially contribute to the injury |
McGhee |
|
|
You have to prove causation and material contribution to risk is not enough |
Wilsher |
|
|
If there is a rock of uncertainty then all you need to show is a duty that exists to prevent exposure, the breach of it, the eventuality that occurs and that there was a material contribution to risk |
Fairchild |
|
|
If it is only proven that there is a mere contribution to risk and therefore not that the D actually caused the harm a proportionate amount is appropriate |
Barker |
|
|
A person found liable for causing mesothelioma or materially contributing to the risk of it is jointly and severably liable for the whole amount |
S.3 Compensation Act 2006 |
|
|
Epidemiological evidence by itself is not enough to defeat the material contribution test. |
Sienkiewicz |
|
|
Material contribution is not necessarily about doubling the risk, just that it materially contributed to it |
Durham |
|
|
You cannot recover for loss of chance |
Gregg v Scott |
|
|
To ensure that a legitimate duty to warn is not hollowed of value the rules on causation can be relaxed to allow for the breach of such a duty to cause the loss. There was no consent and that was seen as pivotal. |
Chester |
|
|
Actions of 3rd parties and extraordinary events are likely to break the chain or causation but if the duty existed to prevent these very events then a duty still occurs. |
Empress Car Co |
|
|
Whether a novus actus breaks the chain of legal causation is to be assessed by ideas of fairness |
Corr |
|
|
Negligent actions usually break the chain of causation but not always. In particular responsible actions taken in the heat of the moment by a rescuer does not break it when there are so many factors occuring |
Knightley |
|
|
Deliberate actions by third parties usually break the chain of causation unless the duty was to directly prevent it |
Weld Blundell |
|
|
Third party actions that are foreseeable will usually be seen as not breaking the chain of causation such as children playing with oil |
Yachuk |
|
|
Unreasonable actions added on to negligent actions do break the chain of causation |
McKew |
|
|
The test for remoteness is reasonable foreseeability of damage and the type of damage |
Wagon Mound No1 |
|
|
When concerning remoteness the type of harm is quite broad and can include all of personal injury for example |
Smith |
|
|
For remoteness the type of harm is required and it does not matter how a sequence of events may result in that type |
Hughes |
|
|
The type of harm is all that is needed to be forseeable so if there was a danger of the boat causing harm, it does not matter that it was not foreseeable that children would get harmed because they attempt to mend the boat |
Jolley |
|
|
It is reasonably foreseeable that the C would also act reasonably |
Spencer |
|
|
The content of a duty depends on why it exists, therefore there is no scope in the DOC for negligent valuations that cause loss from fluctuations of the financial market |
Banque Bruxelles Lambert |
|
|
The eggshell rule applies to remoteness, it is reasonably foreseeable that someone may not have enough money to pay for a hired car |
Lagden |
