Factual causation
There must be a causal connection between the wrong and the damage suffered. ‘But for test’ derived from a significant case Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea Hospital .
But for Watson’s stroke, would the damage to Sherlock still have happened? The answer is no. If D had driven the car at the reasonable standard of an experienced driver, foresaw the risk of potential danger after noticing his blurred vision and subsequently stopped driving, Sherlock would not have been injured. Thus the court is likely to find Watson’s negligence as the factual cause of Sherlock’s harm.
Legal causation
• Was the harm directly caused by the defendant’s act? o There was no break in the chain of events from entering the car to the crash that would …show more content…
I would advise that Sherlock’s family have a likely claim for any damages for personal harm in tort.
SHERLOCK V AMBULANCE
Duty
Kent v Griffiths - the ambulance was distinguished from other public services - it is seen as an extension of the National Health Service, which owes a DoC towards its patients. Once the ambulance accepted Sherlock’s call and sent an ambulance, it was providing a service to that individual and crucially the individual could be harmed as a result of the ambulance’s negligence.
Breach
In the above case, the reasonable time for an ambulance to arrive was 14 minutes. Here it is stated that the ambulance arrived 8 hours, 55 minutes after the call; however, we are not provided with the time they took to reach the destination they believed the incident to be. We will need more information before reaching a conclusion; but for essay purposes, I will assume it has been …show more content…
I would advise that Sherlock’s family claim for personal harm not psychiatric harm as for psychiatric harm – a requirement that it is an “well known” psychiatric harm is essential and as flashbacks are not recognised but are an element of PTSD. In this situation, we do not have enough information to argue a psychiatric harm claim
MARTHA V POLICE
The courts have constantly refused to allow negligence liability in circumstances where C suffers loss because police have made an error in the course of fulfilling their general public functions. The no liability rule was established in Hill v CC of West Yorkshire . Objections to this arose:
• The prospect of liability would lead to defensive practices, which would impede the progress of investigations.
• Defending this type of claim would involve much time, trouble and expense.
When the European Court considered Osman v UK , it found that Article 2 was potentially engaged in such claims against the police, and that Hill rendered the UK's domestic law incompatible with the Convention as it afforded the police blanket immunity from suit, and was therefore incompatible with Article
There must be a causal connection between the wrong and the damage suffered. ‘But for test’ derived from a significant case Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea Hospital .
But for Watson’s stroke, would the damage to Sherlock still have happened? The answer is no. If D had driven the car at the reasonable standard of an experienced driver, foresaw the risk of potential danger after noticing his blurred vision and subsequently stopped driving, Sherlock would not have been injured. Thus the court is likely to find Watson’s negligence as the factual cause of Sherlock’s harm.
Legal causation
• Was the harm directly caused by the defendant’s act? o There was no break in the chain of events from entering the car to the crash that would …show more content…
I would advise that Sherlock’s family have a likely claim for any damages for personal harm in tort.
SHERLOCK V AMBULANCE
Duty
Kent v Griffiths - the ambulance was distinguished from other public services - it is seen as an extension of the National Health Service, which owes a DoC towards its patients. Once the ambulance accepted Sherlock’s call and sent an ambulance, it was providing a service to that individual and crucially the individual could be harmed as a result of the ambulance’s negligence.
Breach
In the above case, the reasonable time for an ambulance to arrive was 14 minutes. Here it is stated that the ambulance arrived 8 hours, 55 minutes after the call; however, we are not provided with the time they took to reach the destination they believed the incident to be. We will need more information before reaching a conclusion; but for essay purposes, I will assume it has been …show more content…
I would advise that Sherlock’s family claim for personal harm not psychiatric harm as for psychiatric harm – a requirement that it is an “well known” psychiatric harm is essential and as flashbacks are not recognised but are an element of PTSD. In this situation, we do not have enough information to argue a psychiatric harm claim
MARTHA V POLICE
The courts have constantly refused to allow negligence liability in circumstances where C suffers loss because police have made an error in the course of fulfilling their general public functions. The no liability rule was established in Hill v CC of West Yorkshire . Objections to this arose:
• The prospect of liability would lead to defensive practices, which would impede the progress of investigations.
• Defending this type of claim would involve much time, trouble and expense.
When the European Court considered Osman v UK , it found that Article 2 was potentially engaged in such claims against the police, and that Hill rendered the UK's domestic law incompatible with the Convention as it afforded the police blanket immunity from suit, and was therefore incompatible with Article