Negligence: Causation, Defences and Contribution

Question 1

The act or omission of the defendant must linked to the loss or damage suffered by the claimant.

Answer 1

Barnett; McWilliams

Question 2

A claimant failed to satisfy the standard of proof when there was only a 25% the defendant’s breach caused their disability.

Answer 2

Hotson

Question 3

A claimant failed to establish causation of damage because there were several possible alternative causes of his blindness, only one of which was attributable to the defendant.

Answer 3

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

Question 4

In some cases of pure economic loss, claims for loss of chance below 50% may often succeed.

Answer 4

Hotson

Question 5

A claimant can succeed in establishing causation where they can show the defendant’s breach materially contributed to the disease from which they suffer.

Answer 5

Bonnington

Question 6

House of Lords appeared to extend the material contribution approach to cover creation of a material increase in risk.

Answer 6

McGhee

Question 7

The defendant could only be held responsible for a proportion of the harm a claimant suffered as he had had multiple employers over the time he developed a work-related disease.

Answer 7

Holtby

Question 8

The Act giving the court the power to apportion damage between two or more people responsible for the same damage.

Answer 8

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, ss 1 and 2.

Question 9

Mesothelioma is an indivisible injury, and thus each employer was liable for the whole of the claimant’s harm, having exposed them to a material increase in their risk of harm.

Answer 9

Fairchild

Question 10

Although mesothelioma is indivisible, risk of mesothelioma is divisible, and thus defendants were held only liable for the risk that they caused.

Answer 10

Barker

Question 11

Defendants found liable for causing mesothelioma will be each for the whole of the claimant’s harm, not just the extent of their contribution to the risk.

Answer 11

s3 Compensation Act 2003

Question 12

Principle of material increase in risk now likely strictly limited to cases of scientific uncertainty.

Answer 12

Sienkiewicz

Question 13

Where a claimant has suffered harm, a later defendant who causes a subsequent injury should only be liable to the extent that they made the damage worse.

Answer 13

Abraham

Question 14

Instinctive intervention by a third party is not an intervening act.

Answer 14

Scott

Question 15

Negligent intervention by a third party which was not reasonably foreseeable is an intervening act.

Answer 15

Knightley

Question 16

Negligent intervention by a third that is reasonably foreseeable is not an intervening act.

Answer 16

Rouse

Question 17

A lorry driver’s actions were unforeseeably negligent, and thus the original driver whose car broke down and was not moved was not liable.

Answer 17

Wright

Question 18

An intervening act by a third party is more likely to be considered significant if it was reckless or intentional rather than simply negligent.

Answer 18

Lamb

Question 19

Where there is a relationship between parties and a defendant has impliedly agreed to take reasonable care, thieves entering a house they said they’d protect may not be an intervening act.

Answer 19

Troman

Question 20

A claimant acting unreasonably will break the chain of causation.

Answer 20

McKew

Question 21

A claimant who acts reasonably will likely not break the chain of causation.

Answer 21

Wieland

Question 22

The test for remoteness of damage is one of reasonable foreseeability.

Answer 22

Wagon Mound

Question 23

‘Similar in type’ rule.

Answer 23

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Question 24

‘Egg-shell’ rule.

Answer 24

Robinson

Question 25

Example of distinguishing from the similar in type rule.

Answer 25

Tremain

Question 26

What are the two essential elements of the defence of voluntary assumption of risk?

Answer 26

Nettleship:

(a) Claimant had full knowledge of the nature and extent of risk;
(b) Claimant willingly consented to accept the risk of injury due to defendant’s negligence.

Question 27

It could not be said that a passenger who knew a driver had been drinking consenting to the risk simply because they knew about it.

Answer 27

Dann

Question 28

Drunkenness of a pilot was so extreme and glaring that the claimant could be said to have accepted the risk.

Answer 28

Morris

Question 29

The defence of volenti does not apply in cases involving motor vehicles.

Answer 29

Section 149 RTA 1988.

Question 30

An employee has no real freedom of choice when carrying out a dangerous task requested by their employer.

Answer 30

Smith v Baker

Question 31

Rules on rescuers apply equally to professional and lay rescuers.

Answer 31

Haynes

Question 32

Defence of illegality

Answer 32

Pitts v Hunt; Ashton.

Question 33

Contributory negligence requires what two things?

Answer 33

Carelessness on the claimants part and that carelessness contributing to the claimant’s damage.

Question 34

An example of damages being reduced following the defence of contributory negligence.

Answer 34

Reeves

Question 35

Self-induced intoxication cannot be used as an excuse by claimants for failing to take reasonable care of themselves.

Answer 35

Owens

Question 36

Which court laid down various ready-made reductions for not wearing a seatbelt?

Answer 36

Froom

Question 37

Claimants who are children should only be found guilty of contributory negligence if they are of such an age it would be reasonable to expect them to take precautions for their own safety.

Answer 37

Gough

Question 38

Only if a rescuer has shown a wholly unreasonable disregard for their own safety is there likely to be a finding of contributory negligence.

Answer 38

Baker

Question 39

There is no contributory negligence if what the claimant did was reasonable in a perilous situation, albeit it was safer to opt for another course of action.

Answer 39

Boyce

Question 40

Claimant found to be contributorily negligent due to her actions.

Answer 40

Sayers