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;
16 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Application |
Plaintiff cannot prove defendant is negligent, accident is sufficient, absence of an explanation |
|
|
Chaproniere v Mason |
Stones in a bun, accident must be one that does not usually occurs without negligence, needed for inferring negligence. |
|
|
Scott v St.Katherine Docks Co. |
Explanation of policy, see notes. |
|
|
Tracey v hagen |
Former control of something can attract the principle. Thing that causes accident must be in same condition as it was before exercise of control that causes injury. |
|
|
2nd aspect- Accident would not occur where person in control uses ordinary care |
Skinner v L.B, trains won't collide if x y z. |
|
|
Neill v Min. for Finance |
Child's fingers were hurt. Wasn't sufficient evidence to eliminate all reasonable possibility that the driver was not to blame. |
|
|
McLachlin v London |
Quote in notes. |
|
|
Mullin v Quinnsworth |
Plaintiff slipped on oil, recovered. Happened again in Foley v Quinnsworth and did not recover. In the first, Quinnsworth had a system for dealing with spillages, but one had been implemented in the latter case, was just after spillage. |
|
|
Lindsey v Mid WHB |
Current Irish view. Plaintiff arrives at hospital, looks like appendicitis. Suffers brain damage, shouldn't appear in hospital with appendicitis and end up with brain damage.
Court stressed that defendants could avoid liability by showing they were not negligent, or that something else was the cause of liability. |
|
|
Practical, procedural effect. |
A. Case may be considered by the judge.
B. Onus upon defendant to provide explanation, if he fails to do so then the plaintiff must win.
C. Places burden on defendant to prove accident was not a result of negligence.
US, Canada, Australia favour A.
Ireland favour B and C. |
|
|
Kelliher v Tipperary |
Seemed to adopt procedure C(onus shifts to defendant to provide explanation).
|
|
|
Hanrahan v MSD |
Henchy suggests that with this principle, shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant. |
|
|
Present Irish view(Lindsey case) |
They don't have to prove what did cause the damage. They simply have to provide an explanation. Distinction between proving negligent act and role of causation. See the quote in notes. |
|
|
Long and winding explanation nontheless useful |
"In some circumstances..." In notes. |
|
|
O'Flaherty outlining how defendant can avoid liability. |
1. Prove that plaintiff met injuries not connected to anaesthetic.
2. Explain why administration of anaesthetic was not negligent. |
|
|
Canada |
Fontaine v Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.
Plaintiff's husband died in RTA. Sued driver, failed. Nobody had seen the accident, only evidence was circumstantial. Couldn't infer that driver had been negligent.
Essentially abolished the principle. |
