Causation Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital 1968

A

Arsenic poisoning case. ‘But for’ the breach would the patient still have died? Factual causation not proven.

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

McKew v Holland 1969

A

Novus actus interveniens.

Jumping down stairs = caused second injury.

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

Gray v Thames Trains 2009

A

PTSD. Damages for loss of earnings.

Mental hospital. Cannot recover damages from sentences imposed for a criminal act.

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

Re Polemis 1921

A

Traditional approach. Responsible for the direct consequence of ones actions.

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

The Wagon Mound No.1 1961

A

Foreseeability. Debris in oil catches fire from some wielding and the fire spread.
You are liable if the damage resulting from your actions is foreseeable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Jolley v Sutton 2000

A

Boys found a boat and decided to fix it. One fell, suffered paraplegia. Council was found liable, although not foreseeable that they would try to fix the boat, it was foreseeable that the boat would be meddled with = physical injury.

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

Smith v Leech Brain 1962

A

Egg-shell skull. Must take your victim as you find them and must still compensate for the full loss despite some existing weakness.
Had an existing pre-cancerous skin condition.
Burn on the lip caused by D = C died of cancer.

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

Gregg v Scott 2005

A

‘But for’ test difficulties.
C has lost a chance of a better outcome. Dr failed to notice a cancerous lump which increased the chance of death. Liable as a result of the principle from Hoston = loss of chance is actionable = Lord Nicholls emphasised.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Wilsher v Essex AHA 1988

A

More than one possible cause of C’s loss = can result in no person being recognised as the factual cause of C’s loss.
Multiple possible causes of the claimant’s blindness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw 1956

A

Needed to demonstrate that the guilty dust had made a material contribution to his disease.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Fairchild v Glenhaven 2002

A

HL = ‘but for’ test led to unjust results for C so applied McGee’s material contribution test. Defendant’s jointly and severally liable. Science was unable to detect which employer exposed C to asbestos.

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

McGee v NCB 1973

A

Material contribution test.

Material contribution to the risk of harm accepted as sufficient.

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

Holtby v Brigham 2000

A

Question of whether a condition can be treated as divisible. Worked for D for 12 years but worked for other employers who also exposed him to asbestos.
Judge gave damages to reflect the years that C had worked for D.
C appealed and was entitled to full compensation = not only partly liable.

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

Fairchild v Glenhaven 2002

A

Held that if claimants could demonstrate that 1 employer had materially increased the risk of contracting mesothelioma they were entitled to claim full compensation = they were jointly and severally liable for the damage.

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

Barker v Corus 2006

A

Reconsidered Fairchild. Difference was that some of the employers had become insolvent = proportionate liability.
But then the Compensation Act 2006 reversed the ruling, for mesothelioma only.

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

Chester v Asfgshar 2004

A

Consultant failed to warn C of the risk of surgery.
No negligence in surgery but the failure to warn of the risk was classified as a breach of duty.
C claimed that she would have taken more time to consider, if surgery was on a different day, may not have gone badly = therefore liable and appeal was dismissed.