Negligence Flashcards

Question

Material Contribution to Injury How much of the damage will D be liable for?

Answer 1

Williams v The Bermuda Hospitals Board If the condition is a cumulative one and the extent of D’s contribution is known, they will only be liable to that extent.

Answer 2

Same agent Proof of breach A de minimis contribution In this case the tortious dust, despite being mixed in with non-tortious dust, materially contributed to C's injury thus D was liable.

Answer 3

McGhee v National coal Board This case introduced the material increase in risk test for causation, applicable in negligence cases where there is medical or scientific uncertainty on the causal mechanism HOL: D was liable in negligence for causing C’s dermatitis as the exposure to the dirt had materially increased C’s risk of developing dermatitis C was full given compensation for his dermatitis

Answer 4

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd Mesothelioma –possibly from a single fibre – it was impossible to prove scientifically which employer’s asbestos fibre/s had caused C’s mesothelioma. All that science could say was the greater the exposure to asbestos, the greater the risk of contracting the disease. Each employer had materially increased risk of contracting disease: all employers liable – “joint and several liability”. HL decided that normal “but for” test should be relaxed

Answer 5

: where mesothelioma contracted due to negligent exposure to asbestos in course of employment; where more than one employer is involved (as in Barker), employee can claim full compensation from any one of responsible employers, who can then claim against other employer(s) for sum proportionate to their share of blame, and may be entitled to state indemnity if other(s) can’t be traced or are insolvent.

Answer 6

Hotson v East Berkshire AHA A loss of chance to avoid injury is not compensable in negligence Gregg v Scott [2005] 2 AC 176. D misdiagnosed lump under C’s arm as non-cancerous. 9 months later, lump diagnosed as cancerous lymphoma. Cancer had spread. Chance of survival reduced HL rejected loss of chance in personal injury cases.

Answer 7

Chester v Afshar Failure to warn of risks in medical procedures will lead to negligence liability even if causation cannot be proven

Answer 8

Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC Where D1 causes C a tortious injury, but that same injury would have occurred later, via a separate, successive and unrelated act committed by D2, D1’s liability for damages does not cease at the point at which D2’s tort occurs. The causation principle provides that D2 should be liable only for the damage which he inflicted upon c and no more.

Answer 9

Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] Where D has caused some injury to C and then, after the initial tort, but prior to trial, C suffers from an infirmity or illness which would have caused the same injury in any event – D cannot be liable for damages beyond the point at which the naturally-occurring physical infirmity arose

Answer 10

1. The type of injury: Reasonable Foreseeability Test 2. Novus actus interveniens A. A natural event B. Intervening act of a third party Duty to guard Independent and voluntary Negligent conduct Deliberate and wrongful conduct C. Act of the claimant

Answer 11

Hughes v Lord Advocate If the kind of damage suffered is reasonably foreseeable, it does not matter that the damage came about in an unforeseeable way

Answer 12

The The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388 does not suggest that precise manner in which injury is caused and the extent of injury always need to be reasonably foreseeable to prove negligence, it can depend on the circumstances of the case Where the claimant is a child, the court will typically not require that the precise manner and extent of damage be reasonably foreseeable to prove negligence

Answer 13

Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] Provided that the kind of damage is reasonably foreseeable, it does not matter that it is more extensive than could have been foreseen

Answer 14

Where an intervening act occurs, D1’s breach is not considered to have been legally responsible for C’s damage, and D1 will avoid liability altogether for any damage on, and from the occurrence of that intervening act

Answer 15

Carslogie Steamship co. v Royal Norwegian Govt It was held that the defendants were only liable and responsible for the loss of profit resulting from the collision, not for further damage sustained by the natural events at sea. The claim for loss during the 10 day period was not awarded. The chain of causation had been broken by the natural event of the storms at sea

Answer 16

Deliberate and wrongful conduct (e.g criminal conduct) Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] 2 All ER 294

Answer 17

McKew v Holland and Hannen & Cubbitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621 Weiland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1006

Answer 18

Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd Kirkham v CC of the Greater Manchester Police Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Answer 19

Where C is injured by D1’s breach and requires medical treatment as a result, and that treatment is negligently performed by healthcare practitioner D2, that negligent medical treatment will not constitute an intervening act -- unless the medical negligence is so gross and egregious to be unforeseeable. Wright v Cambridge Medical Group

Answer 20

D decorator forgot to lock up when he had finished work The house was burgled while it was unlocked C homeowner sued D for negligence Duty to take positive action can arise from contractual relationship, D was liable for the loss

Answer 21

The Oropesa [1943] P 32 In negligence, a reasonable act of a third party in response to the act of the tortfeasor is not a break in the chain of causation The issues surrounded who was responsible for the death of the seamen, whether it was the Oropesa captain or the Manchester Regiment captain. Advice was sought on whether the captain’s actions of leaving the sinking vessel broke the chain of causation. held that the deaths of the seaman were directly caused by the negligence of the Oropesa. There was no novus actus interveniens.

Answer 22

Knightley v Johns D1’s negligent driving caused the blocking of a busy tunnel D2, the police inspector, negligently forgot to close the tunnel and ordered C (a policeman) to drive back against the traffic to do so C was hit by D3, another negligent driver The judge held that only D1 was wholly responsible for the injury Held (Court of Appeal) D1 was not liable as D2’s negligence constituted a break in the chain of causation D2 was liable for C’s injury Rouse v Squires [1973] QB 899 Wright v Lodge [1993] 4 ALL ER 299

Negligence Flashcards

(47 cards)