Tort Law - Causation Flashcards
1
Q
Stapleton gives what two strands of causation?
A
Historical connection between D’s negligence and injury, and damage falling within scope of liability for consequences
2
Q
What is the usual test for a historical connection between D’s negligence and injury?
A
But for
3
Q
What is the usual test to find damage falling within scope of liability for consequences?
A
Remoteness and NA
4
Q
What are the tests of remoteness and NA, essentially?
A
A normative inquiry reflecting a value judgment as to proper liability limits
5
Q
Who gave two strands of causation?
A
Stapleton
6
Q
What does causation require C to prove?
A
D’s fault caused damage , on the balance of probabilities
7
Q
Name the four possible tests of causation
A
But for, material contribution to injury, loss of chance and material contribution to risk
8
Q
what does the but for test require?
A
D’s wrong to have made a difference
9
Q
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital general
A
Tea doctor arsenic
10
Q
Tea doctor arsenic
A
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
11
Q
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital judgment
A
No claim - administrative processes meant antidote would have been given too late even if doctor hadn’t been negligent
12
Q
What was the key feature in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital?
A
The timetable
13
Q
Why was Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital unusual?
A
Could be relatively sure of outcome in parallel hypothetical sequences of events, which is uncommon in medical negligence
14
Q
Hotson v East Berks AHA general
A
Hip, avascular necrosis, sent home
15
Q
Hotson v East Berks AHA judgment
A
If unsure of outcome, balance of probabilities test
16
Q
Why was the injury considered certain in Hotson v East Berks AHA?
A
75% chance he was already too badly injured
17
Q
What did the judges refuse to rule out in Hotson v East Berks AHA?
A
Possibility of proving loss of chance in medical negligence
18
Q
In what case did the judges refuse to rule out the Possibility of proving loss of chance in medical negligence?
A
Hotson v East Berks AHA
19
Q
Bolitho v City and Hackney HA general
A
Pager message, intubation
20
Q
Bolitho v City and Hackney HA judgment
A
Look to what D says they would have done, see if it would have been negligent, and if yes then causation will be proved on what she SHOULD have done
21
Q
In what case did the courts examine what would happen if D says they would have done X if they hadn’t been negligent, but C says they should have done Y?
A
Bolitho v City and Hackney HA
22
Q
Pager message, intubation
A
Bolitho v City and Hackney HA
23
Q
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group confirmed what case?
A
Bolitho
24
Q
What case confirmed Bolitho?
A
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group
25
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group judgment
Even if subsequent negligence is by 3rd, Bolitho applies
26
Why did Bolitho still apply in Wright v Cambridge Medical Group?
Irrebutable presumption that subsequent treatment would be without negligence
27
In what case was Bolitho held to apply even if subsequent negligence is by 3rd?
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group
28
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group general
Delay in referral, negligent correct diagnosis
29
Delay in referral, negligent correct diagnosis
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group
30
When is the material contribution to injury test used
when several potential causes combine together to cause the damage
31
What do the cases have to be a form of causally for material contribution to injury?
Cumulative causation
32
What is cumulative causation?
Takes into account both innocent and negligent exposures
33
What is alternative causation?
Assumes EITHER D's negligence OR other factor is the cause
34
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw general
Swing grinders, pneumatic hammers
35
What was the harm in Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw?
Pneumoconiosis
36
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw judgment
Negligence in failing to maintain ventilation for swing, but not operation of hammers
37
What was negligence taken to have caused of the total exposure in Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw?
20%
38
What did Lord Reed say of the material contribution to injury test, in terms of the amount of contribution
Any kind is sufficient, as long as above a minimal point
39
What latin saying encompasses Lord Reid's view of contribution in Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw?
De minimis non curat lex
40
De minimis non curat lex
The law does not concern itself with small matters
41
Holtby v Brigham & Cowan general
Asbestosis, different employers
42
Holtby v Brigham & Cowan judgment
Look at quantifiable part of exposure and create employment history to divide responsibility on a 'time exposure' basis
43
How did the court in Holtby v Brigham & Cowan explain full damages in Bennington?
Question of apportionment not raised
44
Asbestosis, different employers
Holtby v Brigham & Cowan
45
Why is it crucial that the injury for material contribution to injury is cumulative?
Every particle/exposure makes the illness a bit worse
46
What does the decision on apportionment in Holtby do to C?
Throws onus on C to sue and recover against all who contributed in order to get full compensation
47
What is the only way C under material contribution to injury can recover full compensation?
Find all who contributed and sue them
48
What is the 'quantifiable part' of exposure?
Length and intensity of exposure
49
Bailey v MoD general
Inappropriate post-op care, further surgery, vomit
50
Inappropriate post-op care, further surgery, vomit
Bailey v MoD
51
Bailey v MoD judgment
Negligence led to C's weakness, which was cumulative cause of brain damage
52
What case shows the operation of material contribution to injury test outside of employment-related injuries?
Bailey v MoD
53
Bailey on material contribution to injury test
Should be confined to situations satisfying 'but for' test in normal way for coherence
54
Stapleton on material contribution to injury test
Any positive mechanism by which the injury occurred should be causal, but THEN consider if C can claim
55
Who said any positive mechanism by which the injury occurred should be causal?
Stapleton
56
Who thought the material contribution to injury test should be confined to situations satisfying 'but for' test in normal way for coherence?
Bailey
57
Miller on the material contribution to injury test
If D's negligence is one of two or more alternative causes, need to satisfy 'but for', but if cumulative then evidential hurdle is lower
58
Who criticised the material contribution to injury test for lowering the evidential hurdle based on the type of injury?
Miller
59
Rahman v Arearose Ltd general
Workplace beating, blind in right eye from hospital
60
Rahman v Arearose ltd judgment
Confirmed proportionate damages are awarded even where causative factors operate concurrently
61
What case Confirmed proportionate damages are awarded even where causative factors operate concurrently
Rahman v Arearose ltd
62
Weir on Rahman v Arearose ltd
No scientific basis for attribution of causality in this way - C is not half mad because of X and half made because of Y
63
Who said that C is 'as mad as he is because of what both of them did', criticising attribution of causality in Rahman v Arearose ltd?
Weir
64
Workplace beating, blind in right eye from hospital
Rahman v Arearose ltd
65
What two academics debate over the proper application of the material contribution test?
Miller and Bailey
66
Bailey on the proper application of the material contribution test
It is a particular application of 'but for' test for cumulatively caused injuries
67
Why did Miller reject Bailey's view that material contribution to injury is just a particular application of 'but for' test?
Bonnington wasn't dependent on knowledge of magnitude or even existence of threshold in relationship linking dust concentration to respiratory function
68
When is the material contribution to risk test used?
When C can't prove D's negligence either made a difference OR that D materially contributed - just increased likelihood C would suffer
69
McGhee v National Coal Board general
Brick kilns, cycle not shower, dermatitis
70
Brick kilns, cycle not shower, dermatitis
McGhee v National Coal Board
71
McGhee v National Coal Board judgment
Material increase in risk the same as material contribution to injury
72
Why could C in McGhee v National Coal Board not use but for or material contribution to injury?
Divergent medical opinion and can't prove difference due to lack of medical info
73
Wilsher v Essex AHA general
Newborn baby, RLF
74
Newborn baby, RLF
Wilsher v Essex AHA
75
Wilsher v Essex AHA judgment
Rejected material contribution to risk is the same as injury - required single agent before departing from but for or material contribution to injury test
76
what distinguished McGhee from Wilsher?
Only one agent involved in McGhee, as opposed to 5 independent possible causes in Wilsher
77
How many independent possible causes were there in Wilsher?
5
78
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services general
Mesothelioma, many employers, delayed symptoms
79
Mesothelioma, many employers, delayed symptoms
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services
80
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services judgment
Proving increase in risk is enough for causation
81
In what case did the HoL cast doubt on McGhee saying material increase in risk is the same as injury?
Wilsher v Essex AHA
82
What case reiterated the view of McGhee in Wilsher?
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services
83
What did the HoL in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services use McGhee as?
The 'fons et origo' of the principle of material contribution to risk
84
What were the HoL careful to say in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services?
Reasoning only applied to facts of Fairchild
85
Per Lord Bingham, what is the situation needed for material contribution to risk test to apply?
Exposure in workplace, range of negligent exposures and no other significant background cause that might explain the illness (single agent)
86
Who doubted the single agent point in Fairchild?
Hoffmann
87
Who gave the three things needed to use material contribution to risk test, and in what case?
Lord Bingham in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services
88
In what case did Hoffmann show a reluctant withdrawal from his scepticism towards the single agent point in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services?
Baker v Corus
89
What did Hoffmann say of the test formulated in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services extra-judicially?
He and the other Law Lords 'failed [the] test quite badly' of creating coherent and principled exceptions
90
What judge stated extra-judicially that He and the other Law Lords 'failed [the] test quite badly' of creating coherent and principled exceptions in Fairchild?
Lord Hoffmann
91
Barker v Corus general
Asbestos from employer and self-employed
92
Asbestos from employer and self-employed
Barker v Corus
93
Barker v Corus judgment
Not necessary for all exposures to be tortious, and C's personal carelessness doesn't prevent Fairchild but may be reflected in CN damages
94
What case showed not necessary for all exposures in material contribution to risk to be tortious?
Barker v Corus
95
What did Lord Hoffmann require there be to limit the material contribution to risk test in Barker?
Single agent
96
What is recovery under material contribution to risk?
Severable
97
What case gave that recovery under material contribution to risk is severable?
Barker v Corus
98
What were the court split on in Barker v Corus?
Apportionment of damages
99
What did the majority say on recovery in Barker?
Only proportional recovery to risk increased
100
What did the minority say on recovery in Barker?
Had to be liable for everything, with onus on D to join others responsible under classic causation rules
101
What did Lord Rodger say to reject proportionate damages in Barker?
In effect allows recovery fro loss of chance
102
Compensation Act 2006 s.3
Adopted Rodger's approach in Barker for mesothelioma cases caused by asbestos
103
What Act adopted Rodger's approach in Barker?
Compensation Act 2006 s.3
104
Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) general
Asbestos fibres from negligence and environment
105
Asbestos fibres from negligence and environment
Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK)
106
Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) judgment
Rejected s.3 CA 2006 created special rule for mesothelioma - common law rules on causation are the same
107
What case Rejected s.3 CA 2006 created special rule for mesothelioma - common law rules on causation are the same
Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK)
108
Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) on rock of uncertainty
It explains why there is a departure from normal causation rules in material contribution to risk - once rock is removed, rule would disappear
109
In what case was it made clear that s.3 CA06 only applies if material risk is held to establish causal link - exposure does not automatically satisfy causation?
Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK)
110
What case do L&O contrast Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) with?
Hotson v East Berks
111
Why do L&O contrast Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) with Hotson?
To show distinction between scientific and personal uncertainty, where only the former allows material contribution to risk test
112
What is scientific uncertainty?
Can't say what amount of harm is needed to cause the injury
113
What is personal uncertainty?
Can't say if C has suffered known amount of harm to cause the given injury
114
Who first began to express concern about Fairchild, and in what case?
Lord Brown in Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK)
115
What was Lord Brown sceptical of in Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) ?
'Rock of uncertainty' to demarcate cases where Fairchild applies from those where it doesn't
116
Durham v BAI (Run Off) general
Insurance policy
117
Durham v BAI (Run Off) judgment
Crucial C actually suffers mesothelioma, not JUST increase in risk
118
what case made it clear that C actually needs to suffer mesothelioma to use material contribution to risk test?
Durham v BAI (Run Off)
119
Who echoed Brown in Sienkiewicz in Durham v BAI (Run Off)?
Neuberger
120
What did Neuberger say in Durham v BAI (Run Off) of Fairchild?
Given problems defining its scope, better to have left it to P
121
According to Lord Mance in Durham v BAI (Run Off), legal responsibility is for what under material contribution to risk test?
Disease itself on a 'weak' view of causal link, rather than for risk created by exposing C to disease
122
What judge in what case stated legal responsibility is for disease itself under material contribution to risk test
Lord Mance in Durham v BAI (Run Off)
123
Who suggested in Durham v BAI (Run Off) that courts should have left it to P in Fairchild?
Lord Neuberger
124
What happens if damage under the material contribution to risk test is indivisible?
Still proportionate damages
125
Hoffmann extra-judicially on Fairchild and judgment in Sienkiewicz
Wished they had rejected Fairchild in Sienkiewicz and left it to P to come up with a more conservative approach
126
What did Laleng say of Fairchild?
It is implicit that it is limited to mesothelioma
127
Why is Laleng's view of Fairchild doubted?
Hoffmann stated it would be an arbitrary distinction which courts could not make to limit Fairchild just to mesothelioma
128
Millett on material contribution to risk potential cases extra-judicially
To apply outside mesothelioma, C would need to show similar 'rock of uncertainty'
129
Who said it would be an arbitrary distinction which courts could not make to limit Fairchild just to mesothelioma?
Hoffmann
130
Who said it was implicit that Fairchild is limited to mesothelioma?
Laleng
131
Why do L&O think Wilsher would now be excluded from material contribution to risk?
Not single agent and nature of evidential certainty was such that they knew how it was caused, just hard to prove attribution to D's neligence
132
How do L&O explain the move from normal negligence damages to proportionate in material contribution to risk?
C already benefitting from relaxation of ordinary causation rules so would be too lenient
133
Who explain why damages are proportionate in material contribution to risk?
L&O
134
Ibbetson and Steele on material contribution to risk
Unjust that negligent Ds as a group are privileged over mesothelioma suffers, which would be the consequence under ordinary rules
135
Who explains the position under material contributon to risk as avoiding the unjust result that negligent Ds are privileged over mesothelioma sufferers?
Ibbetson and Steele
136
How do L&O adopt Ibbetson and Steele's argument on material contribution to show it could apply to more situations than just mesothelioma?
Whenever uncertainty is personal to C, negligent Ds may be privileged over Cs, so should extend to these situations
137
When is the 'doubling the risk' approach considered more appropriate?
When multiple causes are involved
138
Who proposed the 'doubling the risk' approach?
Lords Phillips and Dyson in Sienkiewicz
139
What did Kerr say of the doubling the risk approach?
Real danger that such evidence has a false air of authority
140
Who thought epidemiological evidence has a real danger of having a false air of authority?
Kerr
141
What did the other members of the SC say in Sienkiewicz with regard to epidemiological evidence for doubling the risk approach?
Need evidence linking disease in the individual C to D's negligence - evidence tends to focus on GENERAL, not specific
142
What case required epidemiological evidence to link disease in individual C to D's negligence - not just GENERAL evidence?
Sienkiewicz
143
Who said Fairchild is a 'de facto mesothelioma exception'?
Laleng
144
Why did Laleng see Fairchild as a 'de facto mesothelioma exception'?
Rock of uncertainty doesn't seem to have been reached in any other case
145
West v MoD general
PTSD
146
West v MoD judgment
Fairchild did not apply for PTSD
147
Calvert v William Hill Credit
Fairchild did not apply for gambling addiction
148
Wootton v J Doctor
Fairchild did not apply for an unwanted pregnancy
149
Name at least two cases where Fairchild did not apply because no rock of uncertainty
Wootton v J Doctor; Calvert v William Hill Credit; West v MoD
150
What is a case of indeterminate defendants?
Two or more Ds have acted tortuously towards D, who suffers injury but cannot determine who caused it
151
What vital case is an example of indeterminate defendants?
Fairchild
152
What vital case is NOT an example of indeterminate defendants?
McGhee
153
Summers v Tice general
Shooting in C's direction
154
Shooting in C's direction
Summers v Tice
155
Summers v Tice judgment
Claim of alternative liability, so both Ds equally culpable unless absolved
156
Fairchild on indeterminate defendants
Per Lord Bingham, most jurisdictions would afford a remedy to C in same circumstances
157
What judge and in what case highlighted how most jurisdictions would afford a remedy to C in a case of indeterminate defendants?
Lord Bingham in Fairchild
158
Fitzgerald v Lane general
Pedesterian, two cars, tetraplegia
159
Fitzgerald v Lane judgment
Followed Fairchild - both drivers liable
160
Sindell v Abott Laboratories general
Vaginal cancerous lesions, 200 manufacturers, genetic defect of drug
161
Sindell v Abott Laboratories judgment
All manufacturers liable in proportion to market shares
162
What case on indeterminate Ds was from the US?
Sindell v Abott Laboratories
163
What judge and in what case criticised Sindell v Abott Laboratories?
Hoffmann in Fairchild
164
What did Hoffmann say of market-share liability imposed in Sindell v Abott Laboratories ?
Declined to speculate if it would be imposed in English law
165
How did Hoffmann in Fairchild criticise Sindell v Abott Laboratories?
Additional manufacturers did not materially increase risk of injury, so fell outside of the Fairchild principle
166
Why did the case of Sindell v Abott Laboratories fall outside the Fairchild principle, according to Hoffmann?
Additional manufacturers did not materially increase risk of injury
167
In what case was loss of chance recovery clearly rejected?
Hotson v East Berkshire AHA
168
What case showed the HoL being asked to reconsider Hotson v East Berkshire AHA on loss of chance?
Gregg v Scott
169
Gregg v Scott general
Lump under arm, 9 months, cancerous, 42% to 25%
170
Lump under arm, 9 months, cancerous, 42% to 25%
Gregg v Scott
171
What was C suing for in Gregg v Scott?
Loss of expectation of lifr
172
Why was C unable to recover in Gregg v Scott?
Balance of probabilities showed C probably wouldn't have survived even if started treatment 9 months earlier
173
What did Gregg v Scott show about recovery for loss of chance?
Not given outside of Fairchid
174
what two reasons did HoL give in Gregg for no recovery for lost chance?
C has not yet suffered harm, and balance of probabilities creates a roughness of justice which is just the way it is, to avoid the problematic valuing damage for lost chances
175
Why was it an issue that C had no yet suffered harm in Gregg?
Per Hale, the coin was still in the air - compensation would regard loss of chance as an asset in itself which has been damaged
176
What did the HoL highlight to be a particular problem in Gregg to allow loss of chance recovery?
Problematic and inappropriate for negligence to embark on valuing damage through lost chances
177
What judge in minority in Gregg refused to accept likelihood of damage made quantum too difficult?
Lord Nicholls
178
Who highlighted that 45% chance of recovery is just as much of a loss as 55%, so why only allow recovery for the latter?
Nicholls in Gregg
179
Who said it would be 'seriously deficient' not to recognise negligent diagnosis/treatment diminishing prospect of recovery as a wrong?
Nicholls in Gregg
180
What distinction did Nicholls draw in Gregg?
Between evidential and scientific uncertainty, where only the latter is sufficient for a claim
181
Who argued loss of chance of avoiding cancer could be claimed as consequential upon physical injury in Gregg?
Lord Hope
182
What case rejected Lord Hope's argument in Gregg?
Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating
183
Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating general
Asymptomatic pleural placques
184
Why did Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating reject Hope in Gregg?
Mere presence of physical change not increasing likelihood of disease cannot ground a claim for consequential injury based on chance of contracting disease in future
185
What case made it clear that the Mere presence of physical change not increasing likelihood of disease cannot ground a claim for consequential injury based on chance of contracting disease in future?
Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating
186
Why did Hoffmann apply Hotson in Gregg?
Couldn't distinguish the case
187
Hale in Gregg
Allowing both loss of an outcome and loss of a chance would be very favourable to C and require more complex evidence, introducing unpredictability
188
What judge in Gregg stated that allowing both loss of an outcome and chance would be too favourable to C?
Hale
189
Who worried about the unpredictability of the law if loss of a chance were allowed, and in what case?
Hale
190
What three judges were in the majority in Gregg?
Hale, Hoffmann and Phillips
191
What three judges were in the minority in Gregg?
Nicholls and Hope
192
Who found it unsatisfactory in Gregg that PEL recovery is allowed but not loss of a chance in personal injury?
Hale
193
How did Phillips categorise Hotson?
A case about an adverse outcome, not loss of chance
194
What judge in majority in Gregg left open award for loss of chance?
Phillips
195
How did Phillips leave open award for loss of chance in Gregg?
Hotson was about adverse outcome, not loss of chance
196
What scenario did phillips reject in Gregg?
Coin in the air scenario - can't claim for loss of chance when there is no actual injury yet
197
What did Hoffmann say extra-judicially about causation rules?
Difficulties arise from different causation rules depending on time action is brought
198
Who highlighted the difficulties which arise from different causation rules depending on time action is brought?
Hoffmann, extra-judicially
199
Who highlighted the difficulty of assessing damage value of loss of chance, such that it doesn't end up compensating for the injury itself without fulfilling balance of probabilities?
Voyiakis
200
Why was Voyiakis sceptical about recovery for loss of chance?
Difficulty in assessing damage
201
What is the difficulty Voyiakis highlights with assessing damage for loss of chance?
If by reference to ultimate injury, reducing based on chance of avoiding it, this compensates the injury itself without establishing balance of probabilities
202
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group on loss of chance
Lords Neuberger and Elias LJ felt Gregg suggested loss of chance should have no place in personal injury actions
203
What two judges in what case felt Gregg suggested loss of chance should have no place in personal injury actions?
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group, per Lords Neuberger and Elias LJ
204
Tabett v Gett
HC of Australia rejected loss of chance as compensatable in negligence, at least for pI
205
What case shows another jurisdiction rejecting loss of chance as compensatable in negligence, at least for personal injury, and what jurisdiction?
Tabett v Gett, HC of Australia
206
Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons general
Protection for contingent liabilities, deletion of warranty
207
What was it only necessary to show in Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons?
C would have relied on proper advice if given
208
What was it NOT necessary to show in Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons?
3rd would have given protection to C on a balance
209
How does Coote explain Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons ?
Loss of chance had economic value, which would be artificial in personal injury claim
210
What case shows different treatment between loss of chance for economic loss and for personal injury?
Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons
211
What is the rationale for novus actus?
'Fairness' (Corr v IBC Vehicles)
212
What case stated that NA acts for 'fairness'?
Corr v IBC Vehiclesl
213
Latin name for intervening acts
Novus actus interveniens
214
What judges in Wright v Cambridge Medical Group stated that 'considerations of policy loom large' in NA?
Elias LJ
215
In what case did Elias LJ state 'considerations of policy loom large' in NA?
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group
216
Empress Car v National Rivers
Drum of diesel, 3rd party tap
217
What did Lord Hoffmann say courts should look for for NA in Empress?
Deliberate human acts/extraordinary natural events
218
What did Lord Hoffmann in Empress say courts should consider before attributing responsibility?
Scope and purpose of rule in respect of which responsibility is being applied
219
What Act removed CN as a complete defence?
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
220
What did the LR(CN)A allow courts to do?
Apportion damages where both D and C's fault is causally relevant
221
Yachuk v Oliver Blais general
Wild west
222
Yachuk v Oliver Blais judgment
Chain not broken as carelessness exactly the kind of thing that might have been expected
223
What case suggests less is expected from children, and thus no NA for their negligence?
Yachuk v Oliver Blais
224
McKew v Holland & Hannen general
Occasional numbness, jumped down stairs
225
McKew v Holland and Hannen judgment
Jumping alone wouldn't have broken chain because panic, but walking down steep stairs w/o handrail or help did
226
What is more likely to have been used now in McKew?
CN - chain not broken
227
Spencer v Wincanton Holdings general
Petrol amputee
228
Spencer v Wincanton Holdings judgment
Per Sedley J, 'unreasonableness' is from irrationality to simple unwisdom, but only McKew unreasonable gives NA
229
What case shows a degree of tension between unreasonableness which is an NA, and unreasonableness which leads to CN?
Spencer v Wincanton Holdings
230
Petrol amputee
Spencer v Wincanton Holdings
231
What judge and in what case showed the broad ambit of 'unreasonableness', but required high degree for NA?
Sedley J in Spencer v Wincanton Holdings
232
Jump flight of stairs
McKew v Holland and Hannen
233
Knightley v Johns general
One-way tunnel in Birmingham
234
Knightley v Johns judgment
Broken by inspector negligence, with key factor being the NUMBER of acts of carelessness
235
What did the court stress about rescuers in Knightley v Johns?
Rescuer won't generally be denied a claim based on carelessness
236
What did Stephenson LJ highlight in Knightley v Johns?
Number of errors made the result unanticipated, emphasising deliberate disregard of police standing orders
237
What judge in Knightley v Johns emphasised that the number of errors made the result unanticipated, emphasising deliberate disregard of police standing orders?
Stephenson LJ
238
What did Stephenson LJ say of the specific requirement for rescuer's negligent act to be an NA in Knightley?
'Wanton interference or disregard for rescuer's own safety'
239
Baker v TE Hopkins general
Doctor, two workers in well
240
Baker v TE Hopkins judgment
Rescuer needs to act with 'wanton disregard' before NA of rescuer whose actions were necessitated by D's negligence
241
Sayers v Harlow general
Locked in loo, climbed out
242
Locked in loo
Sayers v Harlow
243
Well, two workers
Baker v TE Hopkins
244
Sayers v Harlow judgment
Seemingly unreasonable conduct necessitated by D's negligence may not always be NA if reasonable in circumstances
245
What Act allowed apportionment of damages between tortfeasors whose contribution has affected judgments on whether intervening 3rd negates responsibility?
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
246
What is the usual finding for damage under Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 if several tortfeasors are responsible in the same way, for the same damage
Joint and several liability
247
What happens if one D is bankrupt/insolvent under Civil Liability (Contribution) Act?
Share of the others, if jointly and severally liable, increases proportionately
248
The Oropesa general
Collision, lifeboat capsized
249
The Oropesa judgment
Emergency situation made decision by 2nd D unlikely to be negligent/break causal link
250
The Oropesa emphasised what in regard to the situation of C in the case?
'in a very perilous plight'
251
Collision, lifeboat capsized
The Oropesa
252
Webb v Barclays Bank
Suggested only gross negligence in relation to intervening medical treatment will break causal link
253
What case suggests only gross negligence in relation to intervening medical treatment will break causal link?
Webb v Barclays Bank
254
Mahony v Krushich
Apportionment fairest when both original and subsequently negligent parties before court
255
Why was it suggested apportionment fairest when both original and subsequent negligent parties are before court in Mahony v Krushich?
Risk of negligent medical treatment entailed by initial injury, so shouldn't end 1st D's responsibility
256
What case stated that apportionment is fairest when both original and subsequent negligent parties are before court ?
Mahony v Krushich
257
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group general
Untimely reference, negligent treatment
258
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group per Lord Neuberger
Only serious or gross negligent would prevent 1st D's initial negligence from being a cause
259
What did Elias and Smith LJJ in Wright v Cambridge highlight?
Doctor's negligence was still A factual cause - intervening negligence did not negate his responsibility
260
Stapleton on Wright v Camrbidge
Neutral language of causation masked value judgments
261
What judges in Wright v Cambridge focused on whether or not 1st D's negligence was still a factual cause?
Elias and Smith LJJ
262
What judge in Wright v Cambridge required serious or gross negligence by 2nd D before 1st D's negligence no longer a cause?
Lord Neuberger
263
What two cases did L&O give for when 1st D's liability can be ended?
By NA or if D's DoC to C is limited
264
Who criticised the case of Wright v Cambridge for masking value judgments?
Stapleton
265
How did Stapleton argue they masked value judgments in Wright v Cambridge?
Through neutral language of causation
266
Rouse v Squires general
Lorry pile up
267
Rouse v Squires judgment
Responsibility apportioned 25/75 between original lorry and fourth driver
268
What was highlighted in Rouse v Squires to justify apportionment?
Lack of sufficient time to notice accident and evade
269
Lorry pile up
Rouse v Squires
270
Wright v Lodge general
Car broken down, carriageway
271
Wright v Lodge judgment
1st driver negligent not to push off, so 10% to passenger, but lorry sole cause of injuries to other drivers
272
Car broken down, carriageway
Wright v Lodge
273
What was the percentage of responsibility apportioned to driver of car broken down in Wright v Lodge, and to who?
10% to his passenger
274
Why is Wright v Lodge hard to understand?
Why is causation denied to injuries arising as a consequence of the initial hit?
275
Froom v Butcher general
Seatbelt
276
Froom v Butcher on Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
Guidelines of 25% are appropriate when determining apportionment under this Act (to 1st D probably?)
277
When can a deliberate act not break the chain of causation?
D under an exceptional duty to take care to prevent 3rd injuring C
278
Lamb v Camden LBC general
Landowner, damage by squatters
279
Landowner, damage by squatters
Lamb v Camden LBC
280
Lamb v Camden LBC judgment
If duty to prevent squatters' deliberate behaviour, cannot complain behaviour was NA
281
Why couldn't they claim squatters' deliberate behaviour was NA in Lamb v Camden LBC?
The behaviour was the occasion of the breach of duty
282
Corr v IBC Vehicles general
Disfigurement, clinical depression, suicide
283
Corr v IBC Vehicles on NA
Chain not broken by deliberate act of C as depression impaired ability/capacity to make a reasoned judgment.
284
What case showed that whether a deliberate act is NA depends on the capacity of C to make a reasoned judgment?
Corr v IBC Vehicles
285
Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police general
Suicide, depressed prisoner
286
Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester judgement
Responsible for creating environment in which V's suicidal tendencies developed
287
Name at least two cases considering suicide as a deliberate act for NA
Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester; Corr v IBC Vehicles; Reeves v MPC
288
Empress Car on deliberate acts as NA
Chain not broken because policy of pollution offence was to require occupants to take all possible steps to stop such behaviour
289
What three cases show the courts explicitly looking to the nature of D's duty to determine if deliberate act was NA or not?
Empress Car; Lamb v Camden LBC; Reeves v MPC
290
Reeves v MPC confirmed what case?
Empress
291
Reeves v MPC on deliberate acts as NA
Sound of mind at time of suicide, so voluntary BUT duty to prevent self-harming so no NA
292
Who expressed concern about medical evidence in Reeves v MPC?
Hoffmann
293
Why was there no NA in Reeves v MPC?
Would make a nonsense of the rule imposing duty if very act it was supposed to protect was an NA
294
Keenan v UK
Once prisoner is suicide risk, Article 2 requires reasonable steps to prevent suicide
295
Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
No general duty to prevent harm if no suicide risk
296
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester
No duty to stop persons they are attempting to arrest from harming themselves
297
What case shows Reeves v MPC is consistent with Article 2 ECHR?
Keenan v UK
298
No duty to stop persons they are attempting to arrest from harming themselves
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester
299
No general duty to prevent harm if no suicide risk
Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
