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;
3 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Wilsher v Essex Birth, Dr administered too much O2. Baby diagnosed with retinal condition, severely limiting sight. 5 potential causes, 4 relating to the premature birth and 1 the Dr's actions. |
Health auth by VL respnfor junior Dr could be held liable for actions where it could not be definitively stated what the chief cause of injury was? + Could a Jr Dr be held to the same prof standards as a fully qualified DR?
HoL whilst the HA could be held liable, as jr Drs owe the same DoC as a fully qualified Dr, however because many potential causes, the C needs to eat the likelihood of causation. |
|
|
McGhee v National Coal Board 1973 To satisfy causation, a C needs to prove that the N behaviour most likely made a material contribution to the injury. C contracted a skin condition during employment with D. The D failed to satisfy their Stat duty to provide washing area to wash dust from the kilns until staff got home. 2 possible reasons for dermatitis- exposure to brick dust and continued exposure until got home. |
Could the D be found liable- or as the D argued if could not be ascertained that the exposure to brick dust was resp. Refer to Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] HoL held that C did not need to prove that all of his abrasions and exposure to brick dust contributed but the dust exposure from D's neg breach of Stat duty had on balance of probabilities, increased likelihood of him developing it. |
|
|
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] The onus and standard of proof in personal injury claims for an employer's breach of Stat duty. Employee of a dressing ship exposed to noxious dust from swing grinders, allegedly causing him pneumoconiosis. D had neglected to ensure that the dust-grinders were compliant with Regulations. In order for the D to be liable, the Stat breach must be shown to have caused the illness. 1st issue- applicable standard of proof concerning the D's fault and who has the onus of proof, 2nd issue- whether the dust from the D's swing grinders caused the illness to satisfy the standard of proof. |
As a point of law, HoL held that, in personal injury claims for breach of an employer's stat duty, the onus of proof lay on the injured employee to show that the breach caused or materially contributed to the injury. As to the standard of proof, the Court held that the D must meet the ordinary standard of proof in civil actions, namely to est on the 'balance of probabilities' that the breach of duty caused or materially contributed to the injury. On the facts of this case, the Court held that the D's breached their Stat duties under 1925 Regulations and the noxious dust did materially contribute to the illness. C met the onus and standard of proof required. |
