Causation in Tort

Question 1

What is the “but for” test?

Answer 1

But for the defendant’s actions, would the breach have occurred? Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

Question 2

What is Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital?

Answer 2

The “but for” test. But for the defendant’s actions, would the breach have occurred?

Question 3

The Wagon Mound I. What is the judgement?

Answer 3

The remoteness test. “If the reasonable person would not have foreseen the damage, then it cannot be recovered”.

Question 4

“If the reasonable person would not have foreseen the damage, then it cannot be recovered”. Which case?

Answer 4

Wagon Mound 1

Question 5

Similar in type rule. What is it and which case?

Answer 5

Hughes v Lord Advocate. If the injury is of the same type as was reasonably foreseeable, it will be claimable.

Question 6

Hughes v Lord Advocate.

Answer 6

If the injury is of the same type as an injury was reasonably foreseeable, it will be claimable, even if the precise way the accident happened was not reasonably foreseeable. Similar in type rule.

Question 7

What are the two cases that deal with the probability of the harm being due to defendant’s negligence? Do they get any damages?

Answer 7

Wilsher, in which a baby’s blindness was only a 20% likelyhood to have been the fault of the hospital.

Hotson, where a boy falling out of the tree’s injuries were 75% likely to be caused by the fall, not negligence.

No damages.

Question 8

In which case was the defendant found liable even though they had only contributed a “material contribution to the risk of harm?”

Answer 8

McGhee v Coal Board

Question 9

In which case was the rule on the “material contribution to the harm” established?

Answer 9

Bonnington Castings

Question 10

“The claimant must demonstrate that the guilty dust had made a material contribution to the disease.” Which case is this the ruling from?

Answer 10

Bonnington Castings

Question 11

What is the rule in Knightly v Johns?

Answer 11

That a NAI by a third party will break the chain of causation if it was not reasonably foreseeable.

Police tunnel case.

Question 12

What is the Egg Shell rule?

Answer 12

If the type of harm is foreseeable the defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm even if the precise extent is not foreseeable. Robinson v Post Office

Question 13

If the type of harm is foreseeable the defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm even if the precise extent is not foreseeable. Which case and rule is this?

Answer 13

The Egg Shell rule. Robinson v Post Office

Question 14

What is the difference between the McGhee ruling and the Bonnington Castings ruling?

Answer 14

McGhee concerns the defendant adding to a “material contribution to the risk of harm”.

Bonnington Castings concerns the “material contribution to the harm”

Question 15

In what case was it established that where a defendant has acted unreasonably it will count as a novus actus interveniens?

Answer 15

McKew v Holland

Question 16

What is the ruling in Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets?

Answer 16

Where a defendant has acted reasonably, their actions will not count as an NAI

Question 17

Where a defendant has acted reasonably, their actions will not count as an NAI. Which case is this?

Answer 17

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets

Question 18

Reckless or intentional conduct is more likely to be a NAI. Which case is this?

Answer 18

Stansbie v Trotman

Question 19

What is volenti?

Answer 19

The voluntary assumption of risk. It is a defence.

Question 20

For volenti to succeed what must the defendant establish?

Answer 20

1. Full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk

2. Willingly consented to the risk of injury due to the defendant’s Negligence.

Question 21

Dann v Hamilton

Answer 21

Knowledge is not generally consent. IE accepting a lift from a drunk driver.

Question 22

Workers do not “consent” as they are under economic pressure to take risks. Which case?

Answer 22

Smith v Baker

Question 23

Smith v Baker. What is the ruling?

Answer 23

Workers do not “consent” as they are under economic pressure to take risks.

Question 24

Do rescuers consent (volenti) to risks?

Answer 24

No, they act out of moral compulsion as in Haynes v Harwood.

Question 25

When is illegality a defence in Tort?

Answer 25

If the claimant was involved in an illegal enterprise at the time of the tort

Question 26

What is the ruling in Ashton v Turner and Pitts v Hunt?

Answer 26

There must be a close connection between the illegal act and the harm suffered for illegality to operate as a defence.

Question 27

In what year was the most important piece of legislation on Contributory Negligence?

Answer 27

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

Question 28

What is the rule on contributory negligence?

Answer 28

If a claimant fails to take reasonable care of his own safety which directly contributed to the damage

Question 29

“The ‘agony of the moment’ is taken into account when snap decisions are made.” Which case?

Answer 29

Jones v Boyce

Question 30

A child must act as a reasonable child of their age. Which case?

Answer 30

Gough v Thorne

Question 31

Froom v Butcher. What is the ruling?

Answer 31

Someone not wearing a seatbelt may be guilty of contributory negligence