3 - TORT - Causation Flashcards

1
Q

What must one prove for negligence?

A

Duty of Care
Breach
Causation
Remoteness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the meaning of ‘res ipsa loquitur’?

A

Where only plausible explanation for C’s injury is D’s negligence:
a) thing causing damage controlled by D
b) accident wouldn’t normally happen w/o negligence
c) cause of accident unknown to C

Large sacks of sugar fell on C 🤕🍭

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What 2 things are required to prove causation?

A
  • Factual causation
  • Legal causation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is factual causation and how is it satisfied?

A

Establishing link between breach & damage
Apply ‘but for’ test: on balance of probabilities, but for D’s breach, would C have suffered their loss at that time, and in that way? If yes = satisfied

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What cases show the ‘but for’ test?
(Both are negative)

A
  • hospital failed to carry out proper examination but evidence showed that V would have died either way - no causation ⏲️🧑‍⚕️☠️
  • baby went blind any one of causes independently could have caused the blindness, one of the potential 5 causes was negligence. Only 20% chance of negligence therefore no causation.
    👶🎰🦯
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Where breach is failure to advise on risks, how is the ‘but for’ test satisfied?

A

Where C can prove they wouldn’t have had the treatment or would’ve deferred it had they been told

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are cumulative causes?

A

more than one cause of the loss and the causes were operating together to cause the loss.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What test is used to satisfy factual causation for cumulative causes operating together?

A
  • more than negligible contribution
    Also applies to sequential cumulative cases
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What cases show cumulative causes?

A
  • respiratory disease cause by exposure to dust 👷💨only some of the exposure was tortious. The disease was caused by the cumulative effect of both sets of dust. more than negligible contribution therefore factory owner liable 🌬️😷
  • C choked on her own vomit caused by progression of disease and negligent act. more than negligible contribution therefore doctor liable 🧑‍⚕️ 🤮☠️
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is a multiple agency case?

A

Each potential cause is unconnected but independently sufficient to cause harm. Therefore don’t know which act caused the harm

  • baby went blind any one of causes independently could have caused the blindness, one of the potential 5 causes was negligence. Only 20% chance of negligence therefore no causation.
    🎰👶🦯
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are single agency cases?

A

Where disease can be caused by one exposure (i.e. cumulative exposure is not required for disease) but C is exposed to both tortious and non-tortious exposures. 🎯

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What test is used for factual causation for industrial disease, single agency cases?

A

Material increase in risk test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the case for single agency cases?

A

C got a skin disease from exposure to brick dust. Working with brick was fine, but not providing showers was not fine. Medical knowledge did not know whether exposure was cumulative or if a ‘one off’ exposure was enough. 🚿🧱👋

Materially increased risk because of increased exposure.

Applies to asbestos - different employers but as long as current employer ‘Materially increased risk’ they will be liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What must be applied if necessary once factual causation is satisfied, where there are multiple tortious factors?

A

Apportionment: apportion liability between defendants
In abestos cases, D’s are jointly and severally liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Is ‘loss of chance’ a potential claim?
🎲

A

No - D argued that their negligent care for their broken leg had robbed them of a loss of chance of a 25% chance of avoiding paralysis.

🦵🎲

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What happens if two incidents cause the same damage?

A

No damage could be held for 2nd event

Rolls Royce needed respraying after the first incident at the time the second incident occurred 🚘👨‍🎨

17
Q

What happens if there’s an intervening cause that wipes out the original harm?

A

Could still be liable for the original harm

  • D caused C’s injured leg, C then had leg removed following being shot. D still liable even though leg no longer injured.
    🔫🦵🦿
  • D gave C a bad back. D then suffered a further non-tortious back injury. D was liable up to the point of the second injury
    🩻⏲️🏋️‍♂️
18
Q

How does one prove legal causation?

A

That there was a NAI that broke the chain of causation:
- Act of God: exceptional natural event (not if foreseen)
- Acts of 3rd Parties: highly unforeseeable (unlikely where 3rd party is medical treatment unless so gross & egregious)
- Acts of Claimant: highly unreasonable (rare)

19
Q

What case shows acts of god?

A

Ship damaged by collision with D and taken for repair. On the way it suffered storm damage. D liable for collision but not storm damage.
🛳️⏲️🌪️🧔‍♀️

20
Q

What case shows acts of third parties?

A

car crash followed by poor handling of resultant traffic by police resulted in police officer being hurt. Broke chain of causation.
🚗🤡👮🦼

Child not referred by GP resulted in hip injury. Treatment eventually received by hospital was also negligent. Held hospital negligence was not enough to absolve GP’s negligence.
🥼🤡➡️🧑‍⚕️🥴

21
Q

What case shows acts of claimants?

A

D caused C’s injured leg. C tried to walk downstairs without a handrail, his leg gave way and he broke his ankle. C’s act was unreasonable so broke the chain of causation.
🦵🥴🪜

D caused C’s injured Neck. C tried to walk downstairs with help from son. she couldn’t see, slipped and broke her ankle. C’s act was not unreasonable.🦵😉🪜

22
Q

What is ‘remoteness’

A

D may be the legal and factual cause of C’s loss, but how liable is D for those losses?

23
Q

Does C need to show only that some harm would occur, or do they need to show that the type of harm would occur?

A

Type of harm

24
Q

What cases cover type of harm?

A
  • Oil spill, liable for clean up but not for damage when oil set fire (which was unlikely)
    🛢️✅🔥❌
  • C got a disease from rat’s urine. Found rat bites were likely, but not rat’s urine.
    🐀✅🫛❌
  • Fan heater in Van didn’t work. Likely that some cold injury would occur therefore, frostbite fell within this sort of injury
    🚚🪭🥶✅✅
25
Q

Do you need to see the exact way damage will occur?
(Inc. case)

A

No

  • oil lams left around a hole. Child dropped lamp into hole causing an explosion and burns. Burns were likely even if exact cause was not.
    🪔🕳️🔥
26
Q

Do you need to foresee the extent of the damage?

A

No, once the damage is reasonably forseable, D is liable for full extent of damage.

  • Small explosion was foreseeable but not the huge one that happened.
    🔥💥
  • D Burnt C’s skin provoking onset of pre-existing cancer. Once burn foreseeable they’re liable to everything that follows (thin skull rule).
    🔥🩹☠️