Legal causation Flashcards
Baker v Willoughby
Supervening acts; C injured leg bcz of D’s BoD. Robbery, leg shot, amputated.
D liable for both injuries; would be unfair to relieve D of liability and leave C “worse off than might have been expected” (shouldn’t undercompensate)
Jobling v Associated Dairies
Supervening acts; C suffers back injury due to D’s negligence (-50% earning cap). Later developed degenerative condition unconnected.
→ Confined baker to situations where 1 tort follows another. Here, possible to rely to end extent of liability
Gray v Thames Trains
Supervening acts; Ds’ negligence, train crash, C injured, developed PTSD. Later killed drunk pedestrian. Manslaughter + diminished responsibility. Sued Thames Train for damages for loss of earnings → Ex turpi non causa.
Carsologie Steamship v Royal Nowegian Gov
Intervention of nature; C’s ship collided with D’s vessel which was negligent. On journey to US to carry permanent repairs, storm severely damages the ship.
→ Break the chain of causation, D only liable for the damage resulting from the collision, storm = novus actus
Lamb v Camden
Intervention of Third Party; D’s negligence, water pipe explosion caused C’s house to be evacuated. Squatters moved in and caused further damage. → No liability. Even though foreseeable, refused damages for policy reasons. Denning: ‘Every society has its proportion of idiots & criminals’. Foreseeable, but shouldn’t be liable.
Knightley v Jones
Intervention of Third Party; D caused accident in tunnel. Police negligently closed tunnel, an officer ordered another to drive against traffic to close it.
C injured, sued D. → Break the cause of causation. + Negligent conduct is more likely to break chain, bc we foresee that ppl make mistake
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group
Intervention of Third Party; case of baby referred to hospital late, then negligence.
→ Original cause still relevant, ≠ certainty of 2nd negligence.
McKew v Holland
intervention of C; C injured, leg could give way at any moment. Went down stairs, felt leg failing, jumped to avoid falling and broke his ankle. Sued original D, who argued chain of causation broken.
→Not unreasonable to jump, but original decision to use stairs unreasonable. So he broke the chain of causation.
Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets
intervention of C; C had to wear neck collar after injury, limited field on vision. Fell down stairs because unable to wear glasses. Descended with adult son for support, but still missed a step.
→ Chain not broken. C was reasonable.
Reeves v commissioner of Police
intervention of C; Suicide (prisoner)
→ Not broken, bc very thing they were guarding against.
Corr v IBC vehicles
C’s intervention; Suicide. Following accident at work, C is disfigured and chronically depressed. Estate sued the employer.
→ Liability possible, chain not broken, causal csq of accident.
The Wagon Mound (No1)
Fundamental principle of remoteness established.
Test: whether the damage is of a kind that was foreseeable. If a foreseeable type of damage is present, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage
Hughes
reasonable foreseeability test (remoteness); Boy playing by manhole left open by post office. Paraffin lamps near hole to prevent people, entice him, C fell, lamps fell, and boy is severely burned in the following explosion.
→ Liable. Foreseeable that child would be enticed. Kind of damage foreseeable, only extent wasn’t. So liability
Jolley v Sutton LBC
reasonable foreseeability test (remoteness); Children repairing derelict boat, injured.
→ Kind of injury not exactly foreseeable (falling though plank ≠ jack giving way) but ‘kind’ interpreted as ‘some physical injury though meddling with the boat’. Liable.
Smith v Leech Brain
Remotness, Think-Skull Rule; C = cancer after burn to lip. BoD on employer. Activated existing propensity for cancer. Death. Appropriate test:
- Is it foreseeable that C would suffer some harm?
- Thin-skull; take victim as you find them
