Tort Of Negligence

Question 1

Vision Gold Ltd v Weightmans

Answer 1

The ‘but for’ test was satisfied in that if the defendants had not breached their duty by failing to make the application, the claimants would have got the land back. The fact that the second firm had gone on to cause the damage might mean that the defendants could claim a contribution from them, but it did not mean they could avoid liability for their breach of duty.

Question 2

Brooke v Bool

Answer 2

Both defendant and lodger were jointly liable for the damage caused by the latter’s negligent act.

Question 3

Fitzgerald v Lane

Answer 3

The claimant was considered to be 50 per cent to blame, and the court then had to decide how much contribution had to be made. It was held that both drivers were equally to blame, and should contribute equal shares of the remaining 50 per cent of the damage.

Question 4

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

Question 5

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Answer 5

Where liability is joint or several, and one or more tortfeasors are not sued, the Act allows those who are sued to recover a contrbution from them.

Where there is joint or several liability, a claimant who sues one tortfeasor but cannot enforce the judgement can bring a later action against another of the tortfeasors. Settling out of court with one tortfeasor also ends claims against the others.

Question 6

Compensation Act 2006

Answer 6

S3: makes each defendant jointly and severally liable.

Introduced as a result of Mesothelioma cases where it was difficult to ascertain exactly who caused the damage or who caused how much damage.