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;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol |
Man fell to his death after not being provided with the safety equipment required by statute Held That the duty is on the pursuer to provide a casual factual link between the wrong and the breach. Although the employer was in breach it was proven the employee wouldn't have work it anyway. Therefore there was no link. |
|
|
Barnett v Chelsea |
Three night watchmen were drank poisoned tea. The duty doctor in A&E told them to go to their GP. One of the men then died. Held Employing the but for test. There was no factual link between the wrong and the death because the man would have died regardless. |
|
|
Wardlaw v Bonnington Castings |
Case where the man inhaled silica dust. Held That the fact that the defenders hadn't maintained proper ventalation 'materially contributed' to the development of the pursuers condtion. "The pursuer has, however, in my opinion, proved enough to support the inference that the fault of the defenders has materially contributed to his illness." per Lord Keith |
|
|
McGhee v NCB |
Case where a laborer in a mine developed dermatitis due to dusty conditions and no shower facilities Held That the NCB had 'materially increased the risk' of him developing such a condition |
|
|
Kay v Ayrshire and Arran Health Board |
A child was given an overdose of penicillin and then became deaf. Held That deafness was also a symptom of the child's original condition. This meant that it could not be known whether the overdose was what actually caused the deafness. There could be no casual link established |
|
|
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services |
Case where men were exposed to asbestos by several different employers. The question was how to apportion liability. Held In cases such as this, the courts should use a modified approach. The court should ascertain whether each defendant materially increased the risk on the balance of probabilities. If so, then this is enough to show a causal link. |
|
|
Grant v Sun Shipping Co |
Legal Causation case, some repairers didn't cover a hatch on a ship as instructed. And the shipowners didn't ensure that this had been done. Held That both the repairers and the shipowners would be liable. The repairers 75% and the owners 25% |
|
|
Donaghy v NCB |
A mine worker hit a detonator with a hammer which then exploded. The defenders had left them out. Held That a novus actus intervenienes occured by the hitting of the hammer. It would be unreasonable for any person to expect that. Therefore the defender was disentitled to claim. A novus actus interveniens is usually an unforeseeable, unusual, hazardous and/or unwarrantable consequence. Therefore breaking the chain of causation. |
|
|
McKew v Holland, Hannon and Cubbits Ltd |
A man was injured at work causing his left leg to occasionally go numb. He was descending some stairs a few weeks later and felt his leg go numb. He then chose to jump down the stairs and caused further injury. Held That the man couldn't claim for this as his jumping down the stairs had been a novus actus interveniens. The consequences were not 'a natural and probable result of the defenders conduct' |
|
|
Sayers v Harlow UDC |
A woman tried to climb out of a stall in which she had been trapped accidentally. She called for help for ages but nobody came. She put her foot on the toilet roll holder which fell off the wall and she was injured. Held That in the situation she was in that was not an unreasonable course of action. She had called for help etc. At first instance, this was held to be a novus actus interveniens. However, on appeal, it was held to be contributory negligence. |
|
|
Ratcliffe v Plymouth and Torbay? |
Stated that res ipsa loquitor enables a plaintiff to put the onus on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence |
|
|
McQueen v Glasgow Garden festival |
Held That a person wasn't able to make a claim of res ipsa loquitor because there may have been fault of another party involved. This means that there must be certainty that only one party was in control of the act |
|
|
McDyer v Celtic Football Club |
Held That the res ipsa loquitor inference can be drawn when one party has sole control over the thing that caused the damage |
|
|
NG Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat
|
Held That if the defender submits evidence against an inference of res ipsa loquitor then the court must evaluate that evidence as to establish whether the inference can still be drawn |
