Negligence causation

Question 1

what is causation?

Answer 1

who cause prob or injury?

Question 2

two types of cause?

Answer 2

factual and legal causation

Question 3

what is factual causation?

Answer 3

Did the actions of the Defendant CAUSE the problem / injury?
(CSI-style investigation)

Question 4

cases for fact causation?

Answer 4

• 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]

Question 5

what is meant by filter ?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Multiple causes, 1 agent?

Answer 6

1 person but many other causes

Question 7

cases for multiple causes?

Answer 7

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%??

Question 8

mutiple agents but 1 cause?

Answer 8

still factual cause but opposite we know what cause but ther is multiple agents

Question 9

cases for multiple agents? (abestos)

Answer 9

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]-??

Question 10

summary of multiple ag?

Answer 10

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

Question 11

what is res ipsa?

Answer 11

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

Question 12

cases for res ipsa?

Answer 12

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]

Question 13

factual causation res ipsa summary?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

factual causation interdiminate causes?

Answer 14

1st work share of blame other 50% what % share of that

Question 15

cases for interdimiate causes?

Answer 15

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??

Question 16

summary indtiermijnate auses?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

factual causation loss of chance?

Answer 17

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

Question 18

what is legal causation?

Answer 18

broken chain

Question 19

legal causations?

Answer 19

remoteness
type of damage
novus actus
superving acts
intervening acts

Question 20

what is remotenes?

Answer 20

different foreseeability to caparo

should d be liable -SHOULD the Defendant be liable for causing the problem / Injury

Question 21

remoteness cases?

Answer 21

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]

Question 22

types of damages cases?

Answer 22

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

Question 23

types of damages summary?

Answer 23

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

Question 24

what is novus actus?

Answer 24

you can break chain - liab for self - two concepts superving and intervening acts

Question 25

supervening act cases?

Answer 25

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

Question 26

int act cases?

Answer 26

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]

Question 27

summary for int cases?

Answer 27

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