Negligence causation Flashcards
what is causation?
who cause prob or injury?
two types of cause?
factual and legal causation
what is factual causation?
Did the actions of the Defendant CAUSE the problem / injury?
(CSI-style investigation)
cases for fact causation?
- Tomlinson v. Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47- main causal link and try to miss policy it will get wider and wider
- Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969] – The ‘But For’ test
- Sutton v. Syston Rugby Football Club Ltd [2011]
- Calvert v. William Hill [2009]- contrib, causation failed
- Hutchinson v. Epsom & St Helier NHS Trust [2002]
what is meant by filter ?
Leading Case: Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428
Key principle: The “But For” test
Initial filter / gatekeeper role to solve ‘straightforward’ claims
but for wont solve all probs so might need extra legal
Multiple causes, 1 agent?
1 person but many other causes
cases for multiple causes?
Bonnington Castings v. Wardlaw [1956]– balance of prob 51% ??
McGhee v. National Coal Board [1973]-didnt hit 51% did something wrong but did it cause- criticised??
Wilsher v. Essex AHA [1988]- material contribution test - too late?
Bailey v. MoD [2008]-but for test more from neg 51%??
mutiple agents but 1 cause?
still factual cause but opposite we know what cause but ther is multiple agents
cases for multiple agents? (abestos)
Holtby v. Brigham and Cowan (Hull) Ltd [2000]- Key Facts: The claimant was exposed by a series of employers to asbestos dust over 24yrs (and by D for 12yrs). D only liable for its share of damage
- Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral [2003]-Key Facts: A worker contracted mesothelioma from asbestos dust, however he had worked at more than one employer…- unfairnes but if were to choose would choose d more so over c
- Barker v. Corus UK Ltd [2006]-Barker v. Corus UK Ltd [2006]- diff groups- based on risk higher percentage- brought comp act 2016-tomlinson s1 , s2 apoligies, s3 how to calclulatedamages= fairchild
- Sienkiewicz v. Greif (UK) Ltd [2011]- accepted to rule in fairchild
- Williams v. University of Birmingham [2011]- how liable arose is prop btw them- ct said both workout bbtw both
- Wright (A Child) v. Cambridge Medical Group (A Partnership) [2011]-??
summary of multiple ag?
Leading Case: Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] UKHL 22
Leading Statute: Compensation Act 2006, s.3
Key test is: ‘Material Contribution’
The exception to the ‘But For’ rule is justified for mesothelioma due to the lack of any definitive epidemiological evidence
what is res ipsa?
the think speaks for itself only use in certain cirum dont need it as much cts ignore this too?? Judge: "Has your client never heard of res ipsa loquitur?Barrister: "My Lord, in the corner of Connaught which my client farms, they talk of little else.“
needs to be something that generally doesnt happen
cases for res ipsa?
Scott v. London & St.Katherine Docks co [1895]- 3 critiea - management of d, not proper care, absence of exp by d= neg
Mahon v. Osborne [1939]-??
Cassidy v. Ministry of Health [1951]- wouldnt have hppened i care used
Ward v. Tesco Stores Ltd [1975]- tesco could have avoid, if no cant rebut defence
Roe v. Minister of Health [1954]- non delegable duties- once explained not res ipsa = normal neg
Ng Chun Pui v. Lee Chuen Tat [1988] (Privy Council)
Delaney v. Southmead HA [1995]
Ratcliffe v. Plymouth & Torbay HA [1998]
Hussain v. King Edward VII Hospital [2012]
Thomas v. Curley [2013]
factual causation res ipsa summary?
Leading Case: Scott v. London & St.Katherine Docks [1895] 159 ER 665
RIL is essentially creates a prima facie (Rebuttable) case
Difficult to argue that problems should not have occurred in medical cases as they are inherently imprecise
D must have exclusive control and management of the problem
factual causation interdiminate causes?
1st work share of blame other 50% what % share of that
cases for interdimiate causes?
Summers v. Tice [1948] (Supreme Court of California)- how prove= switich burden on d - goes against tort
Cook v. Lewis [1986] (Canada)-dont apply summers found liable
Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral [2003]- policy and justice??
Fitzgerald v. Lane [1989]- int causes and contrib neg??
summary indtiermijnate auses?
Leading Case: Fitzgerald v. Lane [1989] AC 328 (HL)
The burden of proof may need to be reversed in very limited cases for the interests of justice
Where however there is contributory negligence, this should be taken into account after the apportionment of fault
factual causation loss of chance?
Hotson v. East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] (CA)]
Tahir v. Haringey HA [1995]
Gregg v. Scott [2005]
Leading Case: Gregg v. Scott [2005] UKHL 2
Loss of chance for personal injury not considered good law
Insufficient to show general increments of delay, instead must be able to prove a measurable damage / material contribution. This will be difficult if the injury or damage started before any negligence occurred
what is legal causation?
broken chain
legal causations?
remoteness type of damage novus actus superving acts intervening acts
what is remotenes?
different foreseeability to caparo
should d be liable -SHOULD the Defendant be liable for causing the problem / Injury
remoteness cases?
Leading Case: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd – The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961]
Remoteness is a legal rather than factual concept
Test is ‘reasonable foreseeability’
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd – The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961]- not bound not foreseeable- reasonably foreseability case R. v. Croydon Health Authority [1998]
types of damages cases?
Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963]- reasonable foresseable plus applies tod amage dont matter extent of injury
Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v. BDH Chemicals [1971]- predict little bit
Brown v. Lewisham & North Southwark HA [1999]- not legal liab not everything is claimable
Smith v. Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962]- egg shell skull principle
types of damages summary?
Leading Case: Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837
Leading Case: Smith v. Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405
Once it is foreseeable that a defendant is liable for the type of the physical damage, then they are liable for the full extent of the damage, even though the extent may have been unforeseeable
what is novus actus?
you can break chain - liab for self - two concepts superving and intervening acts
supervening act cases?
Performance Cars v. Abraham [1962]- if new hit pay if already there dont pay
Baker v. Willoughby [1970] (DOUBTED)- can be tortious or criminial back to bpay dont pay but wa doubted??
Jobling v. Associated Dairies [1982]- polcy apprach- natural causes should be taken to reduce claim The simple vicissitudes of life….
“…Among the contingencies and vicissitudes of life relevant to the assessment of damages for tort, is that the victim’s expectation of both natural and working life may be reduced or terminated by the future development of illness or infirmity.”
(Lord Edmund-Davies) [808]
Leading Case: Jobling v. Associated Dairies [1982] AC 794
Possible to have concurrent or multiple causes for an injury / damage
Natural causes should be taken into account to reduce damages
Often a pragmatic (or policy) approach is adopted based on fault
int act cases?
The Oropesa [1969]- need to undetsand waht breaks chain of caus - 2 things occur 2nd completely diff to 1 …
Robinson v. Post Office [1974] -sues for allergic reac- doc or employer?
Knightley v. Johns [1982]- sued poss d
Wright v. Lodge [1993]-??
McKew v. Holland & Hanmen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969]- idiot for holding baby- noones fault but your own breaking chain novus actus new action
Wieland v. Cyril Lord Carpets [1969]- reasonable no novus actus
Rahman v. Arearose Ltd & University College London NHST [2000]
summary for int cases?
Leading Case: Knightley v. Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349
Leading Case: McKew v. Holland & Hanmen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621
Possible to have concurrent or multiple causes for an injury / damage
Often a pragmatic (or policy) approach is adopted based on fault, and each claimant’s actions leading up to the accident
