Unit 4 Flashcards
Which statement most accurately represents the meaning of the ‘but for’ test?
But for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the claimant still have suffered his damage?
Which of the following is not an aspect of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978?
The contribution action is brought by the original claimant
Which of the following scenarios does not raise a question of factual causation?
Britney has developed serious paralysis, following a minor accident at work. She does not know whether or not her negligent employer can be held responsible for the paralysis.
The claimants in Allied Maples Group v Simmons were not required to prove on the balance of probabilities that the sellers would have granted indemnities but only that if asked there would have been a substantial chance that they might have granted them.
True- However they were required to prove on the balance of probabilities that, had they been properly advised by the defendants, they would have requested the indemnities from the seller.
Which of the following best describes the ratio of Hotson v Berkshire Area Health Authority?
A 25% chance of a cure was not sufficient proof of causation for a negligence claim to be successful.
Which of the following statements describes a way in which the facts in McGhee and Fairchild differed?
The factor of accumulation in creating the harm.
Baker v Willoughby and Jobling v Associated Dairies are contrasting cases which illustrate the courts’ approach to which causation problem?
Supervening causes. correct
Which of the following statements best represents the ratio of Wagon Mound (No.1)?
A defendant is liable for damage which could reasonably be foreseen to result from his negligent act.
Which of the following cases is not a good representation of the current legal approach to remoteness of damage?
Tremain v Pike
Annabelle was injured in a car accident due to the negligence of Leroy, another driver who failed to stop at a red light. She was taken to the hospital and waited for treatment for her minor injuries in the Accident & Emergency Department. She ignored medical advice to remain in bed and found her way through a window to an unlit balcony in order to have a cigarette, where she fell, seriously breaking both legs. Is Leroy likely to be liable for her broken legs?
No, because Annabelle’s lack of care for her own safety broke the chain of causation from Leroy’s wrong.
The thin-skull rule does not apply to financial weakness of the claimant in the same way it applies to physical weakness of the claimant.
False- since the House of Lords case of Lagden v O’Connor in 2003, both physical and financial weakness in the claimant will be covered by the thin-skull or ‘take your victim as you find him’ rule.
Which of the following statements concerning the law of causation is NOT accurate?
It is an area relatively unaffected by judicial policy.
