Apportionment and Multiple Sufficient Causes Flashcards
What is the primary goal of apportionment in tort law?
A) To allow the claimant to sue multiple defendants separately for full compensation
B) To divide liability fairly among defendants who contributed to the harm
C) To ensure the first defendant remains liable for all damages, regardless of later events
D) To provide full compensation to the claimant without considering the claimant’s own fault
B) To divide liability fairly among defendants who contributed to the harm
Explanation:
Apportionment distributes liability between multiple defendants based on their level of fault, ensuring fairness while compensating the claimant.
In Fitzgerald v Lane & Patel (1987), how was liability apportioned between the two defendants and the claimant?
A) Each defendant was fully liable, and the claimant recovered 100% of damages
B) Each defendant was responsible for 50% of damages
C) Each defendant was responsible for 25% of damages, with 50% deducted for the claimant’s own negligence
D) The second defendant was not liable as the first defendant caused the initial harm
C) Each defendant was responsible for 25% of damages, with 50% deducted for the claimant’s own negligence
Explanation:
The claimant was 50% at fault, so only 50% of damages were recoverable, split equally between the two negligent drivers.
Under the Compensation Act 2006, how is liability apportioned in mesothelioma cases?
A) Defendants are jointly and severally liable
B) Each defendant pays only for their proportion of fault
C) The court determines which defendant caused the mesothelioma and assigns full liability
D) The claimant must prove which employer was responsible for the exposure
A) Defendants are jointly and severally liable
Explanation:
In mesothelioma cases, claimants are unable to prove which exposure caused the illness, so all negligent employers are fully liable under the Compensation Act 2006.
In Performance Cars v Abraham (1962), why was the second defendant not liable?
A) The second collision was unforeseeable
B) The first defendant had already settled the claim
C) The required respray was already needed before the second incident
D) The second defendant had a duty of care but did not breach it
C) The required respray was already needed before the second incident
Explanation:
Since the car already needed a respray before the second collision, no additional harm was caused, and the second defendant was not liable.
A factory worker injures his back due to employer negligence, reducing his ability to work. A year later, an unrelated medical condition makes him permanently disabled. How does liability apply?
A) The employer remains liable for all losses, including permanent disability
B) The employer is only liable for damages up to the onset of the medical condition
C) The employer is not liable at all since the medical condition caused permanent disability
D) The employer and the medical condition share liability equally
B) The employer is only liable for damages up to the onset of the medical condition
Explanation:
Following Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982), if a natural illness worsens the claimant’s condition, the defendant’s liability ends at that point.
A driver negligently injures a pedestrian’s leg, causing pain and stiffness. Later, the pedestrian is shot in the leg, leading to amputation. The robbers are never found. Who is liable for what?
A) The driver remains liable for the original injuries, and the robbers (if found) are liable for the amputation
B) The driver’s liability ends after the amputation, as the leg no longer has pain and stiffness
C) The robbers are fully liable for all damages since they caused the amputation
D) The driver is liable for both the initial injury and the amputation
D) The driver is liable for both the initial injury and the amputation
Explanation:
In Baker v Willoughby (1970), the original defendant remained liable because the robbers were untraceable, preventing the claimant from recovering damages from them.
A worker suffers an injury due to employer negligence, reducing their ability to work by 50%. Three years later, they develop an unrelated illness that makes them completely unemployable. Can the employer be liable for all lost earnings?
A) Yes, if the employer was initially responsible for reducing their earning capacity
B) No, the employer’s liability ends once the unrelated illness takes full effect
C) Yes, if the unrelated illness was foreseeable
D) No, because the worker was still earning before the illness occurred
B) No, the employer’s liability ends once the unrelated illness takes full effect
Explanation:
In Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982), a natural illness that prevents employment entirely limits the original defendant’s liability to losses before the illness occurred.
A pedestrian is hit by a car and suffers minor head injuries. Two weeks later, they are involved in another accident that results in severe brain damage. How will liability be determined?
A) The first driver is liable for all brain damage
B) The first driver is liable for the initial injuries, but the second driver is liable for the brain damage
C) The first driver is not liable since the brain damage occurred after their accident
D) The claimant must prove which driver caused the majority of harm
D) The claimant must prove which driver caused the majority of harm
Explanation:
If two accidents contribute separately to the harm, the claimant must show which defendant caused which part of the damage.
A factory worker develops lung disease after years of asbestos exposure at multiple companies. Which legal principle applies?
A) Apportionment under the Compensation Act 2006
B) The ‘but for’ test to determine which employer was responsible
C) Each employer is only liable for the period when the worker was employed by them
D) The first employer remains fully liable for all damages
A) Apportionment under the Compensation Act 2006
Explanation:
The Compensation Act 2006 ensures all employers who negligently exposed workers to asbestos are jointly and severally liable for the damages.
A cyclist is hit by a negligent driver, suffering minor knee injuries. A month later, they fall down the stairs at home and suffer a major knee injury. How is liability determined?
A) The driver remains liable for all knee injuries
B) The driver is only liable for the initial knee injuries
C) The claimant cannot recover any damages since the later fall was unrelated
D) The driver and the claimant must share liability equally
D) The driver and the claimant must share liability equally
Explanation:
If the second injury was a separate event (not a foreseeable consequence of the first), liability is split accordingly.
