Flashcards in Causation in Tort Deck (31)
What is the "but for" test?
But for the defendant's actions, would the breach have occurred? Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
What is Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital?
The "but for" test. But for the defendant's actions, would the breach have occurred?
The Wagon Mound I. What is the judgement?
The remoteness test. "If the reasonable person would not have foreseen the damage, then it cannot be recovered".
"If the reasonable person would not have foreseen the damage, then it cannot be recovered". Which case?
Wagon Mound 1
Similar in type rule. What is it and which case?
Hughes v Lord Advocate. If the injury is of the same type as was reasonably foreseeable, it will be claimable.
Hughes v Lord Advocate.
If the injury is of the same type as an injury was reasonably foreseeable, it will be claimable, even if the precise way the accident happened was not reasonably foreseeable. Similar in type rule.
What are the two cases that deal with the probability of the harm being due to defendant's negligence? Do they get any damages?
Wilsher, in which a baby's blindness was only a 20% likelyhood to have been the fault of the hospital.
Hotson, where a boy falling out of the tree's injuries were 75% likely to be caused by the fall, not negligence.
In which case was the defendant found liable even though they had only contributed a "material contribution to the risk of harm?"
McGhee v Coal Board
In which case was the rule on the "material contribution to the harm" established?
"The claimant must demonstrate that the guilty dust had made a material contribution to the disease." Which case is this the ruling from?
What is the rule in Knightly v Johns?
That a NAI by a third party will break the chain of causation if it was not reasonably foreseeable.
Police tunnel case.
What is the Egg Shell rule?
If the type of harm is foreseeable the defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm even if the precise extent is not foreseeable. Robinson v Post Office
If the type of harm is foreseeable the defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm even if the precise extent is not foreseeable. Which case and rule is this?
The Egg Shell rule. Robinson v Post Office
What is the difference between the McGhee ruling and the Bonnington Castings ruling?
McGhee concerns the defendant adding to a "material contribution to the risk of harm".
Bonnington Castings concerns the "material contribution to the harm"
In what case was it established that where a defendant has acted unreasonably it will count as a novus actus interveniens?
McKew v Holland
What is the ruling in Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets?
Where a defendant has acted reasonably, their actions will not count as an NAI
Where a defendant has acted reasonably, their actions will not count as an NAI. Which case is this?
Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets
Reckless or intentional conduct is more likely to be a NAI. Which case is this?
Stansbie v Trotman
What is volenti?
The voluntary assumption of risk. It is a defence.
For volenti to succeed what must the defendant establish?
1. Full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk
2. Willingly consented to the risk of injury due to the defendant's Negligence.
Dann v Hamilton
Knowledge is not generally consent. IE accepting a lift from a drunk driver.
Workers do not "consent" as they are under economic pressure to take risks. Which case?
Smith v Baker
Smith v Baker. What is the ruling?
Workers do not "consent" as they are under economic pressure to take risks.
Do rescuers consent (volenti) to risks?
No, they act out of moral compulsion as in Haynes v Harwood.
When is illegality a defence in Tort?
If the claimant was involved in an illegal enterprise at the time of the tort
What is the ruling in Ashton v Turner and Pitts v Hunt?
There must be a close connection between the illegal act and the harm suffered for illegality to operate as a defence.
In what year was the most important piece of legislation on Contributory Negligence?
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
What is the rule on contributory negligence?
If a claimant fails to take reasonable care of his own safety which directly contributed to the damage
"The 'agony of the moment' is taken into account when snap decisions are made." Which case?
Jones v Boyce