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;
4 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Baker v Willoughby |
FACTS: - damage to leg by D, then got shot by third party HELD: - Aboutthe cause of a loss. The later events did not undo damage that had already beencaused but, rather made it worse - liability continued even after he lost the leg, was for loss of amenity - didn't change just got worse |
|
|
Jobling v Associated Dairies |
- FACTS: - P slipped and injured back at work - due to statutory breach - reduced earning capacity by 50% - was later discovered he had an unrelated spinal disease which made him totally unfit for work - HELD: - Aboutthe quantification of a loss. - Damages for loss of earning capacity arediscounted taking into account the vicissitudes of life during the period oflost capacity. Here a vicissitude had actually happened and could not beignored - Thesubsequent event was not tortious and was, therefore, a vicissitude whichneeded to be taken into account |
|
|
Sunrise Co Ltd v The Ship |
FACTS:
- Shipdamaged by defendant and required 27 days for repair. Then damaged in anunrelated incident in which it would have required 14 days ISSUE: Wasthe second event relevant? - HELD -that were liable for 27 days, second incident was irrelevant |
|
|
ACC v Ambros (OVERVIEW) |
· Shifting theevidential burden of proof· Inferences ofcause· Statistical links· Proximity betweenalleged cause and alleged effect
|
