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;
5 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Arneil v Paterson |
- FACTS: - 2 dogs owned by 2 different people - they savaged a flock of sheep - ISSUE: - were the separate owners liable? - HELD: - both were fully liable as it was indivisible, no way of telling which dog killed each sheep |
|
|
Rahman v Arearose Ltd |
FACTS:
- 2black youths assaulted plaintiff when working for defendant - Injuredeye and went to hospital, operation negligently performed and led to a loss ofsight in that eye. Also developed a post traumatic stress disorder, phobia ofblack people and personality disorder HELD: - that the defendants had not caused indivisible harm, each defendant had causeddistinct portions of the plaintiffs overall condition· Per Laws LJ – + Concurrent tortfeasors are each liable for the wholeof the damage constituted by a single indivisible injury + Damage is indivisible where there is no rational basisfor an objective apportionment of causative responsibility + Where damage is divisible, each tortfeasor is liableonly for the damage he or she has caused |
|
|
Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co |
- FACTS: - two people searching with candles for gas leak - HELD: - Notsatisfied because either can point the finger at the other and say that itwould have occurred if one was there but the other was. Strict application - The but for test can be overly exclusionary - their actions are causational even though they don't meet the test - it's a judgment call |
|
|
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw **** LEADING CASE |
- material contribution test - FACTS: - Plaintiffcontracted illness from inhaling silicone dust from 2 sources, one of which thedefendants were responsible for - HELD: - that the defendant caused the harm, ruled to be indivisible - Twosources – tortious and non tortious. - initially there was no cause of action, but at some stage the accumulation of dust will become the disease, and actual injury |
|
|
Wilson & Horton Ltd v A-G |
- FACTS: - incorrectly stacked newsprint fire - damage by non tortious behaviour (fire) - and tortious event (negligence) - HELD: - where a proportionable division can be done then it should be done |
