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;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Name that case: Actionable damage C suffered from pleural plaques |
Rothwell and others v Chemical Engineering Co and others 2007 |
|
|
The Law of negligence gives no remedy for discomfort or distress which does not result in bodily or psychiatric illness |
Hunter v Canary Wharf 1997 |
|
|
What is Causation? |
1. Whether what the defendant did was the factual cause of a claimant's loss 2. Whether, in certain cases, although the claimant's loss is the factual result of D's actions, the law should nevertheless say that D is not liable because the loss is 'too remote' |
|
|
What is the two stage test for causation? |
1. Causation in fact 2. Causation in law |
|
|
Name that case: The pragmatic approach Causation is to be understood as the man in the street, and not as either the scientist or meta physician would understand |
Yorkshire Dale Steamship Co v Minister of War Transport 1942 |
|
|
Name that case: 'but for test' Works only for a single D Damage would not have happened but for a particular fault |
Cork v Kirby Mclean 1952 |
|
|
Name that case: Omissions What would have happened had D chosen to act rather than do nothing? |
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol & Co Ltd 1962 |
|
|
Concurrent causes (cumulative) The causes in question occur more or less simultaneously |
Fitzgerald v Lane 1987 |
|
|
Concurrent Causes (Indeterminate) 1 is the cause but cannot determine |
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority 1988 |
|
|
All or nothing C had a 42% chance of making a full recovery Need a min of 5% to win the all or nothing approach, to get compensation |
Gregg v Scott 2005 |
|
|
Consecutive causes One after another, not the same time Where 1 act succeeds another so that the second act effectively 'overtakes' |
Performance cars v Abraham 1962 Baker v Willoughby 1970 |
|
|
Jobling v Associated Dairies 1982 |
Was awarded for the first disease but the seconds disease was outside of work |
|
|
Material Contribution What approach does the court take? |
Courts will take an all or nothing approach Except for Wardlaw v Bonnington casting 1956 |
|
|
Bonnington Casting |
50/50 Courts found for the C D had to pay 100% of damages even though it was 50% his fault |
|
|
Took Wardlaw approach Open policy based (D to be liable) |
McGhee v NCB 1973
|
|
|
McGhee Exception Sienkiewicz v Grief |
Mostly in mesothelioma cases |
|
|
Breach must cause actionable damage (Real Damage) Is the damage so remote that D should not be liable |
Gilker & Beckworth 2011:190 |
|
|
The current approach Under Polemis, D should be liable, but H/L said no! Would the D, Reasonably foreseen the kind of damage |
The Wagon Mound No. 1 |
|
|
Was it reasonably foreseeable? (yes) Does not have to show exact damage but reasonable expectation |
Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 |
|
|
Reasonably foreseeable (Physical harm) Some damages should be foreseeable |
Bradford Corp v Robinson Rentals 1967 |
|
|
'Kind of' damage exceptions 'Very substantially different to that which could be reasonably foreseen' |
Crossley v Rawlinson 1982 |
|
|
14 year old injured himself. H/L said Hughes, was it foreseeable for children to meddle with the boat causing injury? |
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council 2000 |
|
|
Extent of damage No warning had been placed on chemicals that when came into contact with water would explode Although the scale of the explosion and damage was reasonably foreseeable, some explosion was foreseeable |
Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals Lt 1971 |
|
|
The 'eggshell skull' rule Take your victim as they come Pregnant woman was working behind the bar when a car came through the wall causing her to have a premature birth |
Dulieu v White 1901
|
|
|
Some limitations Only applies where the C can show that a duty of care was owed and that it had been breached |
Bourhill v Young 1943 |
