Tort Wksp 3

Front 1

Three elements of causation

Back 1

Factual Causation
Intervening Acts
Legal Causation

Front 2

Factual Causation Test

Back 2

'but for' test

Front 3

Legal Causation Test

Back 3

Remoteness of damage

Front 4

Remoteness of damage aspects

Back 4

'Wagon Mound (No 1)' Rule, including provisos:
- "Similar in Type" Rule
- "Egg Shell Skull" Rule

Front 5

Wagon Mound (No 1)

Back 5

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?

Front 6

"But For" Test

Back 6

But for D's breach of duty would the C have suffered the harm anyway?

Front 7

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

Back 7

Created the 'but for' test

Front 8

Novus Actus Interveninus

Back 8

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.

Front 9

Intervening Acts test

Back 9

The chain of causation will not be broken if the 3P's intervening act was reasonably foreseeable.

Front 10

McKew v Holland

Back 10

Intervening Acts test

Front 11

Similar in Type rule

Back 11

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.

Front 12

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Back 12

Established similar in type rule, made it easier for C to seek damages.

Front 13

Elements for defence of contributory negligence

Back 13

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

Front 14

Effect of contributory negligence

Back 14

-Only a partial defence
- Court will reduce damages by what it feels is just and equitable

Front 15

Gough v Thorne

Back 15

For child in contributory negligence what would a reasonable child of the same age do.

Front 16

Sayers v Harlow UDC

Back 16

Contributory negligence test is for a reasonable person

Front 17

Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority

Back 17

C must chow that on the balance of probabilities that the harm suffered was caused by D to succeed in negligence claim.

Front 18

Wilshire v Essex Health Authority

Back 18

C was unable to prove that D had caused his blindness on balance of probabilities as several alternative causes existed.

Front 19

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw

Back 19

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.

Front 20

McGhee v National Coal Board

Back 20

For negligence causation it was sufficient to show that the Ds had materially increased the risk of the C contracting the disease.

Front 21

Holtby v Brigham and Cowan

Back 21

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.

Front 22

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Back 22

Gives the ct the power to apportion the damage according to each Ds share of responsibility for the damage.

Front 23

Performance Cars v Abraham

Back 23

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.

Front 24

Knightley v Johns

Back 24

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)

Front 25

Rouse v Squires

Back 25

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)

Front 26

Lamb v Camden LBC

Back 26

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)

Front 27

Stansbie v Troman

Back 27

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.

Front 28

McKew v Holland

Back 28

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.

Front 29

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets

Back 29

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.

Front 30

Tremain v Pike

Back 30

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.

Front 31

Robinson v Post Office

Back 31

Established the 'egg-shell skull' rule.

Front 32

Nettleship v Weston

Back 32

Established the defence of voluntary assumption of risk (Volenti non fit Injuria).

Front 33

Defence of Voluntary Assumption of Risk

Back 33

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

Front 34

Dann v Hamilton

Back 34

- 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.

Front 35

Morris v Murray

Back 35

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)

Front 36

Smith v Baker

Back 36

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)

Front 37

Haynes v Harwood

Back 37

Policeman rescuing people acted under compulsion and didn't willingly accept the risk of injury.

Front 38

Pitts v Hunt

Back 38

Established the defence of illegality

Front 39

Illegality

Back 39

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

Front 40

Law Reform (Contrib Neg) Act 1945

Back 40

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.

Front 41

Case Law Considerations for Contrib Neg

Back 41

-Culpability- relative blameworthiness of the two parties
- Causation- extent to which C's carelessness contributed to loss suffered.

Front 42

Froom v Butcher

Back 42

Contrib neg for seatbelts

Front 43

Capps v Miller

Back 43

Contrib neg for no helmets on motorcyclist.

Front 44

Owen v Brimmel

Back 44

Contrib neg for self-induced intoxication (must still take reasonable care for one's self)

Front 45

Baker v TE Hopkins and Sons Ltd

Back 45

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.

Front 46

Jones v Boyce

Back 46

Contrib Neg- C faced a dangerous situation and in light of that danger his actions were found to be reasonable.

Front 47

Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd

Back 47

Suicide:
- Reasonable forseeable
- Needn't break the chain
- Not voluntary assumption of risk
- Not contrib neg

Front 48

Civil Liability (Contribution) ACt 1978

Back 48

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.