Causation Flashcards

1
Q

Wardlaw v Bonnington Castings

A

Causation satisfied. “material contribution” test satisfied from grinders so liability for whole injury followed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Williams v Bermuda Hospital Board

A
  • Delay in appendicitis
  • “material contribution”
  • sepsis from natural sources but harm worse due to hospitals delay in diagnosis
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Fairchild

A
  • “material contribution” must actually have increased risk/conduct of injury
  • risk must be by substantion of same agent
  • all employers were joint and severally liable
  • even an 18% increase in risk established causation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Greg v Scott

A
  • delay in diagnosis reduced chances of survival
  • no claim: prospects less than 50%,
  • only 18% better chance of survival over 10 years
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Distinction between commercial and medical cases (causation)?

A

> commercial: real chance

> medical: balance of probabilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Mcghee v National Coal Board

A
  • pursuers expert medical witness could not say that this made a material contribution
  • materially increase the risk that he would contract dermatitis . Held that this was enough for employers to be liable.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Barnett v Chelsea

A
  • failure to diagnose a condition that was in any even incurable: no causation
  • “but for”.. death regardless
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Wilsher v Essex AHA

A
  • too much oxygen - potential cause of baby’s blindness
  • existence of up to 5 possibilities
  • could not prove that this was a factor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Novus actus interveniens? 2 cases.

A

New intervening act that can disrupt original liability.

e.g.

McKew v Holland (leg)

cf.

Corr (PTSD > dep. > death: causal connection)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Grant v Sun Shipping

A
  • Subsequent negligence was not a novus actus interveniens
  • liability shared for
    i) failure to shut hatch
    ii) failure to check if shut
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Robinson v Chief Constable

A
  • chain not interrupted by resisting arrest

- police failed to argue new act by suspect trying to run away

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly