LIABILITY: NEGLIGENCE; Deciding Breach

Question 1

What did the House of Lords decide in Fairchild v Glenhaven (2002)? (2)

Answer 1

Following wisher decided on its facts and reversed the decision; “ it is enough that the claimants can show each employers negligence materially increased the risk of their contracting of the disease”

Question 2

What occurred in the case Ogwo v Taylor (1987)? (3)

Answer 2

Defendant negligently set fire to his house while using a blow lamp. The fire brigade was called and a fireman was injured. He sued for his injuries. House of Lords held that he should succeed as the injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence.

Question 3

What is a case for rescuers in problems with causation? (1)

Answer 3

Ogwo v Taylor (1987)

Question 4

How do rescuers become a problem for causation? (2)

Answer 4

As a matter of policy it is regarded as foreseeable that, if a state of danger is created by negligence then some other person may attempt a rescue. The person creating the state of danger may be liable.

Question 5

What is the exception to the rule made in Fairchild v Glenhaven (2002)? (1)

Answer 5

Arises where the defendant is injured by one of several tort reasons and cannot prove which one.

Question 6

What are the cases for multiple causation? (2)

Answer 6

Fairchild v Glenhaven (2002)
Wisher

Question 7

What are some problems with breaking the chain of causation? (2)

Answer 7

Multiple causes
Rescuers

Question 8

Which cases show victims condition, in terms of breaking the chain of causation? (1)

Answer 8

Smith v Leech brain and co ltd (1967)

Question 9

What occurred in the case Fairchild v Glenhaven (2002)? (2)

Answer 9

Court of appeal had no liability attached to any employers as the claimants could not prove on the balance of probabilities the period of employment in which they inhaled asbestos fibres which started the disease.

Question 10

What occurred in the case McGhee v national coal board (1973)? (3)

Answer 10

Claimant cleaned out brick clins where he was exposed to brick dust. He contracted dermatitis, employer failed to provide adequate washing facilities. Claimant cycled home in dirty clothes which increased the risk of contracting dermatitis. Employer liable on the balance of probabilities, negligence was the cause.

Question 11

What occurred in the case Corr v IBC vehicles ltd (2006)? (2)

Answer 11

Corr developed severe depression as a result of his employers negligence. Eventually he committed suicide. This suicide did not break the chain of causation as the depression drove him to do it. The employer was liable (novus actus interventions)

Question 12

What occurred in the case Smith v Leech brain and co ltd (1962)? (4)

Answer 12

Smith worked for a molten metal company. One day a piece of molten metal struck his lower lip and burnt it. The burn was treated but overtime the burn began to enlarge and smith was diagnosed with cancer. 3 years later he died. Employer was liable as he burnt his lip at work. (He was an individual vulnerable to cancer and they knew this).

Question 13

What cases come under victims own actions, in terms of breaking the chain of causation? (3)

Answer 13

Corr v IBC vehicles Ltd (2006)
Knightly v Johns (1982)
McGhee v national coal board (1973)

Question 14

How can you break the chain of causation? (3)

Answer 14

Victims own actions
Victims condition
Third party intervention

Question 15

What occurred in the case Doughty v Turner asbestos (1964)? (2)

Answer 15

The claimant was injured due to a chemical reaction between an asbestos lid and molten metal which caused an explosion. This burnt the claimant, scientific knowledge could not predict the situation therefore it was not foreseeable.

Question 16

What occurred in the case Bradford v Robinson rentals (1967)? (3)

Answer 16

The claimant was forced to work in very cold conditions which resulted in him getting frostbite, he decided to roll down the window on the van which caused this so that he could see out the windshield. The court held that his employers were liable for his injury because even though his injury was usual it was still foreseeable.

Question 17

What occurred in the case Hughes v Lord advocate (1963)? (3)

Answer 17

Due to workmen leaving a man hole unattended and badly covered a young child decided to explore it with his friend. On the event that they climbed out of the man hole they knocked over one of the lamps surrounding the hole which caused an explosion. The court held that though the explosion itself was not foreseeable the injury was so the defendants were liable.

Question 18

What cases show differences in the type of injury? (3)

Answer 18

Hughes v lord advocate (1963)
Bradford v Robinson rentals (1967)
Doughty v turner asbestos (1964)

Question 19

What occurred in the case Chester v afshar (2004)? (3)

Answer 19

An operation on the claimants spine was carried out without negligence. Defendants failed to warn of a 1-2% chance of paralysis, claimant sued stating she would not have gone under if she had been warned. House of Lords allowed claim as not to would mean doctors duty to inform patients would have no effect as there would be zero consequences is broken.

Question 20

What occurred in the case the wagon mound (No.1) (1961)? (3)

Answer 20

Oil leaked from a ship. The oil caught fire and damaged the claimants equipment on the wharf, there defendants were not liable as the damage was too remote. The damage was not remotely foreseeable.

Question 21

What cases show legal causation? (2)

Answer 21

The wagon mound (No.1) (1961)
Bradford v Robinson rentals (1963)

Question 22

What test is used for factual causation? (1)

Answer 22

The but for test; but for the defendants actions would they have still suffered harm?

Question 23

What are the elements of legal causation? (2)

Answer 23

-is the defendant more than a minimal cause of the damage?
-is the action of the defendant too remote from the harm to deem it fair to assume a connection?

Question 24

What occurred in the case Barnett v Chelsea hospital management committee (1969)? (4)

Answer 24

Barnett drank tea spiked with poison, he was rushed to hospital but was later discharged where he died. His widow sued saying that the hospital had been negligent as the doctor failed to treat her husband. Hospital breached duty however the doctor could not have saved him as the poison had already gotten into his system. Failure to provide medical treatment was not the cause of his death.

Question 25

What cases show factual causation? (2)

Answer 25

Barnett v Chelsea hospital management committee (1969)
Chester v afshar (2004)