causation and remoteness

Question 1

4 elements in negligence

Answer 1

1. Duty: The defendant had a responsibility to care for the plaintiff.
2. Breach: The defendant failed to meet that responsibility.
3. Causation: The defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff’s harm.
4. Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual harm or loss.

Question 2

factual vs legal causation.

Answer 2

factual: did the defendants action directly cause the plaintiff harm? the “ But for” test is used here.
Legal: even if it did, is the defendant legally responsible for it? was the harm foreseeable?

Question 3

The “ But for” test

Answer 3

This test asks,
would have the harm occurred but for the defendants actions?
Cork v Kirby Maclean, the worker feel and died because the platform had no railing, the court said that if the platform had proper railing then he wouldn’t have fallen, so the lack of railing was the cause of the harm.

Question 4

The burden of proof.

Answer 4

It is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendants actions caused the harm.

Question 5

Omission and Evidence.

Answer 5

if something is safe ( stairs in a castle) then there is no duty to inspect.
Kearney v Paul and Vincent, the plaintiff failed to prove that the milk replacer caused the calve death, so he lost the case.

Question 6

recklessness.

Answer 6

a reckless act can still be the cause of an act.
Conole v red bank oyster, the boat was known to be unsafe, but the captain took it anyway, leading to a disaster. the court held the defendant fully responsible for the harm.

Question 7

legal causation ( remoteness)

Answer 7

even if the defendants action causes the harm, the law asks, “ is the harm too remote or unforeseeable to hold the defendant responsible?

Question 8

CAUSATION IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

Answer 8

• In medical cases, the plaintiff must show that “but for” the doctor’s negligence, the injury wouldn’t have occurred.
• If there’s more than a 50% chance the injury would have happened anyway (even with the doctor’s mistake), the plaintiff can’t win the case. In Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital, the doctor’s mistake didn’t directly cause death, so the plaintiff lost.

Question 9

loss of a chance.

Answer 9

sometimes its not about if the defendants action caused the harm, but whether they took away a chance to avoid it.
Hoston v east Berkshire health authority,a missed diagnosis meant the boy lost a chance of recovering without disability. The court awarded partial damages for the lost chance.