Causation Flashcards

1
Q

Barnett

A
  • Man went to hospital for stomach pain
  • Doctor did not properly examine him
  • Dies of arsenic poisoning that night
  • Not factual causation as the patient would have died anyway
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Barrington v Wardlow

A
  • Employee exposed to two types of dust in the workplacee
  • contracted lung disease
  • however, one was innocemt and the other negligent
  • Court held that the source was enough to prove contribution to the disease
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

McGhee v National Coal Board

A
  • employee worked in brick kiln
  • got dermatitis
  • question was whether it was an immediate or long term issue
  • employer did not have cleaning facilities at workplace
  • court held that this was enough to contribute to negligence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Fairchild

A
  • Employee got cancer
  • worked for three different employers who all exposed to contracting the disease
  • sued most recent employer
  • Although they could not prove that the final employer was the one that caused the illness, they could argue that they contributed to it on the balance of probabilities
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Wilsher v Essex Area Authority

A
  • Premature birth
  • near blindness
  • this was a known risk
  • also negligence however due to excessive oxygen given by doctor
  • this risk was not known
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Hotson

A
  • Man went to hospital with sore leg with 75% chance of limp
    □ 100% after the hospital
  • Denied 25%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Phillip v Ryan

A
  • Delayed diagnosis
  • €5k awarded for reduced life expectancy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Morrissey v HSE

A
  • P victim of negligent reading of cervical check slides
  • had they been read correctly
  • simple procedure
  • less than 5% chance of pre-cancer reoccurance and less than 1% of invasive cancer developing
  • due to the inaccurate reading, P had approx 2 years to live at time of trial
  • Loss of chance could apply in these cases
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Smith v Leavy

A
  • Deceased had heart condition and would have died anyway
  • negligence of D caused him to have operation
  • Died from heart condition on operating table
  • D held responsible
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Crowley v AIB

A
  • P Suffered serious injuries when he fell off a flat roof of an AIB building
  • Architects avoided liability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Smyth v Industrial Gases

A
  • D’s car dropped lime putty on road
  • Schoolboy picked it up and threw it at another causing a serious eye injury
  • held no break in causation as it was foreseeable that a child may throw it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Breslin v Corcoran

A
  • D briefly left his car unattended and keys in ignition on a busy city centre street
  • Car stolen and pedestrian injured
  • held that there was a break in the chain of causation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Conole v Redbank Oyster Co

A
  • P’s daughter drowned in a boating accident
  • boat had been negligently constructed by a third party
  • had been declared not seaworthy
  • Chain broken by employee
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

McKew v Holland

A
  • P was told not to use stairs
  • Held decision to descend stairs was enough to break chain
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Re Polemis

A
  • established rule of remotensess where damage is foreseeable and D is liable for all damage caused
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Wagon Mound

A
  • Current test for foreseeability
  • Ship docks and negligently causes oil spillage in water
  • other wharf affected
  • oil ignited days later and burned ships
  • held that they were liable for damages that were of a type that could be reasonably foreseen
17
Q

Hughes v Lord Advocate

A
  • Tent pitched up over manhole
  • Defendants were on tea break and did not guard the tent
  • P was ten year old boy who dropped a lantern into the manhole which caused an unlikely explosion
  • P suffered brain injuries
  • Held that, despite the situation being strange, the damage was foreseeable
18
Q

Smith v Leech Brain

A

egg shell skull rule applies

19
Q

O’Hanlon v ESB

A

Necessary to prove some intercourse or communication

20
Q

McComiskey v McDonald

A
  • Sticker on car said that driver drove at their own risk
  • Sued after crashed the car and injured
  • No agreement seen
21
Q

Byrne v Ryan

A

Must be clear that the plaintiff consented to the risk of harm arising from the defendant’s negligence