Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort law > Causation & Remoteness > Flashcards

Causation & Remoteness Flashcards

1
Q

But For test

A

Barnett v Chelasa & Kensington Hospital

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

Balance of Probability test

A

more than 50% likely you would be unharmed if D was more careful

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

Hotson v East Berkshire AHA

A

Can’t use % as loss of a chance

- you can’t redefine damage you suffered to avoid balance of probability test

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

Material Contribution to injury

A

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw

  • any kind of contribution to final injury is sufficient so long as it is above the minimal level (Lord Reed)
  • in this case C recovered full damages (can’t anymore)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Not full damages for material contribution to injury

A

Holtby v Brigham & Cowan

  • cumulative disease
  • C cannot claim full damages form D, only ‘quantifiable part’ (worked out using how long C worked for D and intensity of exposure)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Bailey v MOD

A

material contribution to injury applied outside context of industry injuries
- negligence led to c’s weakens which contributed to C’s damage

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

Material contribution to risk (creation test)

A

McGhee v National Coal Board

  • also claimed it is same as contribution to risk
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

A

doubted McGhee

  • said it had to be a single agent
  • can only depart from but for test and contribution to injury test if exposure is from the same agent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Resurrection of McGhee prinicple

A

because of Mesotheliomia

  • began in Fairchild (but all sources of asbestos dust to which C was exposed was tortious)
  • in Barker - accepted Fairchild principle applies to where D increases risk irrespective of whether other sources are tortious or non-tortious, or due to C’s own CN
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services

A

C succeeded in showing causation by proving increase in risk
- McGhee principle is legitimate but only in appropriate narrow circumstances

  • exposure to toxic agent in workplace
  • range of negligence exposures
  • no significant background causes that might explain illness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Barker v Corus UK

A
  • Fairchild principles does not require all material exposure to be negligent (justified by McGhee - first exposure wasn’t negligent it was inevitable but C succeeded)
  • CN doesn’t matter, just reflected in damages
  • need a single agent
  • amount of compensation = NO FULL COMPENSATION (just damages reflecting increase in risk which D’s exposure has subjected C to is recoverable)
    (NB. Lord Roger minority - joint and several liability)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Statute that says liability is joint and several

A

Compensation Act 2006 s.3 Mesothelioma damages

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

Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK)

A

ROCK OF UNCERTAINTY

  • yes s.3 deviates from normal causation rules but it’s because C cannot bear the burden of medical uncertainty
  • Fairchild/s.3 is an EXCEPTION
  • nb. Lord Brown doubted Fairchild (sceptical)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Durham v BAI

A

You have to a actually suffer damage (liability is imposed for suffering of disease)

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

Loss of a chance (main case)

A

Originally Hotson, after Fairchild, Gregg v Scott

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

Why did HL reject loss of a chance?

A

in Gregg:
1) C has not yet suffered harm he was at risk of suffering (still alive)

2) fundamental that tort of negligence works on the balance of probabilities (50/50 cuts both ways)

outside fairchild - cannot recover for loss of a chance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What did each lord say in Gregg?

A

Hoffman - same as Hotson so no recovery
Hale - different to Hotson but coin is in the air so can’t use loss of a chance
Philips - different from Hotson because Hotson is a claim for adverse outcome rather than loss of a chance, rejected coin was in the air

Nicholls (minority) - different from Hotson, would allow recovery because scientific uncertainty created evidential difficult for C

Hope (minority) - negligence was responsible for physical change (growth of tutor) so damage is complete action in negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Disclosure of Risk to patient

A

Chester v Ashlar

  • another exception to general causation rules
  • because C’s dignity justifies departure from principle
  • patient has a right to be informed about serious risks
19
Q

Wright v Cambridge Medicial Group

A

Smith LJ: “one has to decide whether D ought to be liable for the damage in question”

20
Q

Empress Car Co v National Rivers Authority

A

What breaks chain of causation:

1) deliberate humana cts
2) extraordinary natural events

(mere carelessness won’t do)

21
Q

Corr v IBC Vehicles

A

“The rationale of the principle that a novus actus interveniens breaks the chain of causation is fairness”

22
Q

Lamb v Camden borough Council

A

If third party act was deliberate, D can still be liable if he is under an exceptional duty to take care to prevent third party injuring C
(here council has a duty to prevent the squatter’s behaviour)

23
Q

Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co (Canada)

A

petrol boys case

- good example of where C’s own negligence does not break chain of causation

24
Q

McKew v Holland & Hannen

A

Whether it is too remote depends on whether:

  • has to be foreseeable and reasonable
  • if unreasonable, it is too remote
25
Q

Sayers v Harlow

A

C was negligent too (escaped in a way that involved risk) but chain of causation is not broken

26
Q

Calvert v William Hill Credit

A

CLAIM FAILED

- c’s own disorder, D’s duty does not extend to preventing gambling losses

27
Q

Rouse v Squires

A

Lorry case

  • C’s negligence in leaving lorry there doesn’t remove liability
  • there are cases where an oncoming driver does notice the accident and take evasive action
28
Q

Knightly v Jones

A

One way tunnel crash

  • chain was broken
  • too many acts of carelessness between what D did and what C suffered
  • also a deliberate disregard of police standing order
29
Q

“Deliberate act”

A

must be deliberate, voluntary, and informed

30
Q

Corr v IBC

A

C committed suicide because of depression caused by accident that was D’s fault

  • not broken chain of causation
  • because suicide was not a voluntary and informd act
  • he lacked ability to make a reasoned, or informed judgement
31
Q

Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

A

Ordinary causation rules don’t apply if D

  • because D has a DOC that means that people are prevented from self-harming
  • that police duty would be made into a mockery if a person who self-harms breaks chain of causation
32
Q

Lord Hoffman - Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

A

Lord Hoffman – “once it is admitted that this is the rare case in which such a duty is owed, it seems to be self contradictory to say that the breach could not have caused a harm because the victim caused it to himself”

33
Q

Keenan v UK

A

EU said that Reeves was inline with art.2

34
Q

Wagon Mound I

A

you can only recover for negligence for kinds of damage that are REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
- C couldn’t recover here

35
Q

What kind of harm counts as reasonably foreseeable?

Smith v Leech Brain

A

LIP - > cancer (not too remote!)

two interpretations

1) WAGON MOUND doesn’t apply
- thin skull cases it doesn’t apply
- if c has a particular vulnerability/sensitivity to damage

2) WAGON MOUND is only for type/kind of damage, if extent is unforeseeable it doesn’t matter
- cancer is extent of burn, doesn’t matter its large extent because type of damage was foreseen

36
Q

Lagden v O’Conner

A

PEL!

  • C injuring additional costs has done so as a result of otherwise having to make sacrifices they shouldn’t reasonably be expected to make
  • not too remote because C’s financial vulnerability
37
Q

Vacwell Engineering Co v BDH Chemicals

A

foresaw a small explosion but a large explosions happened

  • not too remote because extent doesn’t matter as long as kind/type of harm was
38
Q

How closely must the chain of events have been foreseeable?

A

D only needs to foresee in outline (not EXACTLY what did happen)

Hughes v Lord Advocate (manhole/paraffin)
- nb this case was also injury that was more extensive than foreseeable and injury itself occurred in an unforeseeable way but it satisfies remoteness

39
Q

Jolly v Sutton London Borough Council

A
  • JUST BROAD TYPE OF HARM needs to be foreseeable (i.e. boat being rotten and giving way thereby harming C)
40
Q

Spencer v Wincanton

A

not too remote that C sustained injuries hopping without a prosthetic on

  • because damage only needs to be seen in broad terms (i.e. C is unsteady on his feet so more prone to falling)
  • Aikens LJ - court should define damage in a broad way
  • degree of tension with McKew which did break chain
41
Q

doughty v turner manufacturing

A

successfully ruled on Wagon Mound

42
Q

Remain v pike

A

successfully ruled using Wagon mound

- rats bites foreseeable, disease contracted because of it was not

43
Q

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

A

C suffered frostbite having to drive in a vehicle without a heater ( had to leave window open to avoid frosting windscreen) - liable because foreseeable injury

44
Q

“Scope of Liability”

A

South Australia Asset Management case

  • used the phrase scope of liability
  • probs fits in with remoteness

Tort law (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions