Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/48

Click to flip

48 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Three elements of causation
Factual Causation
Intervening Acts
Legal Causation
Factual Causation Test
'but for' test
Legal Causation Test
Remoteness of damage
Remoteness of damage aspects
'Wagon Mound (No 1)' Rule, including provisos:
- "Similar in Type" Rule
- "Egg Shell Skull" Rule
Wagon Mound (No 1)
A D is liable for all harm of a reasonably foreseeable kind that results from his breach of his duty of care. Is the damage of such a kind that the reas person would have foreseen it?
"But For" Test
But for D's breach of duty would the C have suffered the harm anyway?
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
Created the 'but for' test
Novus Actus Interveninus
Breaks the chain of causation
Means a new act intervenes (after D's breach of duty) which has sufficient legal impact to render D's breach legally irrelevant in respect of C's losses arising from that new act.
Intervening Acts test
The chain of causation will not be broken if the 3P's intervening act was reasonably foreseeable.
McKew v Holland
Intervening Acts test
Similar in Type rule
A D is liable for all damage which is similar in type to damage which was reasonably foreseeable even if the precise manner of its infliction was unforeseeable.
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Established similar in type rule, made it easier for C to seek damages.
Elements for defence of contributory negligence
For this defence to succeed, the D must show that:
a. the C was negligent in failing to take reasonable care for his own safety AND
b. the harm suffered by C was partly caused by the C's negligence
Effect of contributory negligence
-Only a partial defence
- Court will reduce damages by what it feels is just and equitable
Gough v Thorne
For child in contributory negligence what would a reasonable child of the same age do.
Sayers v Harlow UDC
Contributory negligence test is for a reasonable person
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority
C must chow that on the balance of probabilities that the harm suffered was caused by D to succeed in negligence claim.
Wilshire v Essex Health Authority
C was unable to prove that D had caused his blindness on balance of probabilities as several alternative causes existed.
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw
C succeeded in est causation because he could show that the D's breach of duty materially contributed to the disease from which he suffered.
McGhee v National Coal Board
For negligence causation it was sufficient to show that the Ds had materially increased the risk of the C contracting the disease.
Holtby v Brigham and Cowan
D successfully argued that they should only be responsible for a proportion of the harm suffered, because he was exposed to asbestos by several employers. Paid according to how long he had worked for each employer and been exposed to asbestos.
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
Gives the ct the power to apportion the damage according to each Ds share of responsibility for the damage.
Performance Cars v Abraham
Where a C (or property) has already suffered damage, a later D who causes a subsequent injury should be liable only to the extent that he makes the C's damage worse.
Knightley v Johns
Tunnel accident and injured officer
D could not have foreseen that the accident would have caused the officer to drive the wrong way in the tunnel and get struck (chain of causation broken)
Rouse v Squires
Lorry drive that jack knifed and was struck by a second Lorry.
First Lorry driver could have reasonably foreseen possibility of second accident (chain not broken)
Lamb v Camden LBC
D negligently caused damage to C's house further damage caused by squatters during repair. D not liable for squatter's actions (didn't break the chain)
Stansbie v Troman
House left unattended during upgrade (D went for two hours to get wallpaper), house broken into.
Theft didn't break the chain. D had impliedly agreed to take reasonable care of property.
McKew v Holland
D neg caused C's weakened leg which tended to give way. C descended steep stairs with no rail and fell.
C had acted unreasonably and broken the chain of causation.
Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets
D caused C neck injured that made it difficult to use her glasses and she fel down stairs.
C had acted reasonably and the chain of causation wasn't broken.
Tremain v Pike
C worked on D's farm. D had failed to take care of rat problem. C died from rare disease from exposure to rat urine.
-Failed on causation. Didn't pass 'similar in type' test. Rat bites foreseeable in circumstance but C's condition was unusual.
Robinson v Post Office
Established the 'egg-shell skull' rule.
Nettleship v Weston
Established the defence of voluntary assumption of risk (Volenti non fit Injuria).
Defence of Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Must show that:
- C had full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk; and
- C willingly consented to accept the risk of being injured due to the D's negligence.
- Complete defence
Dann v Hamilton
- C knew that D had been drinking and got into car with him.
To prove Volenti Defence knowledge of risk isn't sufficient to imply consent.
Morris v Murray
Drunk pilot
- Ct ruled that the drunkleness of the pilot was so extreme and glaring that the C could be said to have accepted the risk of his negligence. (Volenti proven)
Smith v Baker
C injured when a heavy crane lifting stones overhead dropped its load on him.
- Just becuase C continued working, knowing the risks didn't mean he consented in law to risk (Violenti defence not proven)
Haynes v Harwood
Policeman rescuing people acted under compulsion and didn't willingly accept the risk of injury.
Pitts v Hunt
Established the defence of illegality
Illegality
Defence for negligence if damages arose directly from the joint legal enterprise (of the C and D) "Was an inherent part of their joint legal enterprise"- Dillon LJ
Law Reform (Contrib Neg) Act 1945
Provides that damages for contrib neg should be reduced:
-To such an extent as the ct thinks just and equitable
- Having regard to the C's share in the responsibility for the damage.
Case Law Considerations for Contrib Neg
-Culpability- relative blameworthiness of the two parties
- Causation- extent to which C's carelessness contributed to loss suffered.
Froom v Butcher
Contrib neg for seatbelts
Capps v Miller
Contrib neg for no helmets on motorcyclist.
Owen v Brimmel
Contrib neg for self-induced intoxication (must still take reasonable care for one's self)
Baker v TE Hopkins and Sons Ltd
Contrib neg and rescuers:
- judged against standard of reas rescuer
- Only if show a 'wholly unreas disregard for his or her own safety' would ct find for contrib neg against them.
Jones v Boyce
Contrib Neg- C faced a dangerous situation and in light of that danger his actions were found to be reasonable.
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd
Suicide:
- Reasonable forseeable
- Needn't break the chain
- Not voluntary assumption of risk
- Not contrib neg
Civil Liability (Contribution) ACt 1978
a person (D1) liable for any damage suffered by another person (C) may recover a contribution from any other person (D2) liable for the same damage.