Negligence- Causation Flashcards
what is the algorithm for negligence action?
Also, which case is this found in?
this is seen in Donoghue v Stevenson.
firstly there must be a duty of care owed to the pursuer.
secondly there must be a breach of their duty
lastly the breach must have caused a loss
what is factual causation?
the pursuer must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defender’s breach of her duty was a cause of the harm sustained by the pursuer
what test can we use to establish if the defender is liable?
But for the actions of the defender, the pursuer would have never suffered damage.
which case helps with the but for test Hospital?
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
night watchmen were violently sick. doctor refuses to see them. no liability to doctor as they wouldve died anyway.
which case helps with the but for test Builder?
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol
falls and no safety harness provided. when safety harness was provided they hated it and took it off anyway. therefore if it was there the worker would’ve refused to wear it anyway. employers negligence did not cause the harm.
the cases for material breach causation and how this changed factual causation. and state the legislation.
Wardlaw v Bonnington Castings Ltd
2 sources of potential injury operating at the same time. one from the machine that he was working at and another from the company’s machines which could have also caused the damage. held that the companys machines could have materially contributed to his injury. therefore demonstrated that there are two ways that the defender can be liable. they can cause the damage and materially contribute to the injury.
McGhee v NCB
showed: the breach of duty caused or materially contributed to his injury. therefore this is added to the test of factual causation and had materially contributed to his injury materially increasing the risk. the breach of dudy of care was not providing washing facilities.
what happened in Fairchild and what was it an example of? did this deviate from the but for test and why?
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services.
an example of the attribution problem. cannot use the but for test because could be one or the other.
material increase of risk is enough to prove factual causation. backed up McGhee v NCB
Both companies that he worked for at different times breached their duty of care.. contracted cancer from breathing in asbestos.
Fairchild exception only applies when it is impossible to scientifically establish the cause of the pursuers injury.
compensation act 2006 s3
one negligent employer
Sienkiewicz v Grief.
Where the disease is indivisible, such as lung cancer, a defendant who has tortiously contributed to the cause of the disease will be liable in full. Where the disease is divisible, such as asbestosis, the tortfeasor will be liable in respect of the share of the disease for which he is responsible.
what does Novus actus interveniens do? and what 3 things can contribute to Novus actus interveniens?
breaks the causal link of liability
a third partys actions.
the victim himself
an external event
which case showed forseeable act of pursuer and
was the own fault of the pursuer.
Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council
Held that it was reasonably foreseeable that the Lady would try to get out of the Cubicle. contributory negligence of 25% putting foot on toilet roll holder.
McKew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts where it was hazardous for him to act in such a way. pursuer jumped down ten steps.
which case showed voluntary decision of pursuer and unreasonableness? what did it show? latin term
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd
suicide of a man
Volenti non fit iniuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict
law on reducing the damages given to the pursuer for their responsibility of their own injuries.
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
2 things decide the cause of the pursuers injuries
Forseeability
the order of events
for a rescuer-
trolley v carr
