Tort Law - Causation Flashcards Preview

Law Second Year > Tort Law - Causation > Flashcards

Flashcards in Tort Law - Causation Deck (299):
1

Stapleton gives what two strands of causation?

Historical connection between D's negligence and injury, and damage falling within scope of liability for consequences

2

What is the usual test for a historical connection between D's negligence and injury?

But for

3

What is the usual test to find damage falling within scope of liability for consequences?

Remoteness and NA

4

What are the tests of remoteness and NA, essentially?

A normative inquiry reflecting a value judgment as to proper liability limits

5

Who gave two strands of causation?

Stapleton

6

What does causation require C to prove?

D's fault caused damage , on the balance of probabilities

7

Name the four possible tests of causation

But for, material contribution to injury, loss of chance and material contribution to risk

8

what does the but for test require?

D's wrong to have made a difference

9

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital general

Tea doctor arsenic

10

Tea doctor arsenic

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

11

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital judgment

No claim - administrative processes meant antidote would have been given too late even if doctor hadn't been negligent

12

What was the key feature in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital?

The timetable

13

Why was Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital unusual?

Could be relatively sure of outcome in parallel hypothetical sequences of events, which is uncommon in medical negligence

14

Hotson v East Berks AHA general

Hip, avascular necrosis, sent home

15

Hotson v East Berks AHA judgment

If unsure of outcome, balance of probabilities test

16

Why was the injury considered certain in Hotson v East Berks AHA?

75% chance he was already too badly injured

17

What did the judges refuse to rule out in Hotson v East Berks AHA?

Possibility of proving loss of chance in medical negligence

18

In what case did the judges refuse to rule out the Possibility of proving loss of chance in medical negligence?

Hotson v East Berks AHA

19

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA general

Pager message, intubation

20

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA judgment

Look to what D says they would have done, see if it would have been negligent, and if yes then causation will be proved on what she SHOULD have done

21

In what case did the courts examine what would happen if D says they would have done X if they hadn't been negligent, but C says they should have done Y?

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA

22

Pager message, intubation

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA

23

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group confirmed what case?

Bolitho

24

What case confirmed Bolitho?

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group

25

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group judgment

Even if subsequent negligence is by 3rd, Bolitho applies

26

Why did Bolitho still apply in Wright v Cambridge Medical Group?

Irrebutable presumption that subsequent treatment would be without negligence

27

In what case was Bolitho held to apply even if subsequent negligence is by 3rd?

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group

28

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group general

Delay in referral, negligent correct diagnosis

29

Delay in referral, negligent correct diagnosis

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group

30

When is the material contribution to injury test used

when several potential causes combine together to cause the damage

31

What do the cases have to be a form of causally for material contribution to injury?

Cumulative causation

32

What is cumulative causation?

Takes into account both innocent and negligent exposures

33

What is alternative causation?

Assumes EITHER D's negligence OR other factor is the cause

34

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw general

Swing grinders, pneumatic hammers

35

What was the harm in Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw?

Pneumoconiosis

36

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw judgment

Negligence in failing to maintain ventilation for swing, but not operation of hammers

37

What was negligence taken to have caused of the total exposure in Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw?

20%

38

What did Lord Reed say of the material contribution to injury test, in terms of the amount of contribution

Any kind is sufficient, as long as above a minimal point

39

What latin saying encompasses Lord Reid's view of contribution in Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw?

De minimis non curat lex

40

De minimis non curat lex

The law does not concern itself with small matters

41

Holtby v Brigham & Cowan general

Asbestosis, different employers

42

Holtby v Brigham & Cowan judgment

Look at quantifiable part of exposure and create employment history to divide responsibility on a 'time exposure' basis

43

How did the court in Holtby v Brigham & Cowan explain full damages in Bennington?

Question of apportionment not raised

44

Asbestosis, different employers

Holtby v Brigham & Cowan

45

Why is it crucial that the injury for material contribution to injury is cumulative?

Every particle/exposure makes the illness a bit worse

46

What does the decision on apportionment in Holtby do to C?

Throws onus on C to sue and recover against all who contributed in order to get full compensation

47

What is the only way C under material contribution to injury can recover full compensation?

Find all who contributed and sue them

48

What is the 'quantifiable part' of exposure?

Length and intensity of exposure

49

Bailey v MoD general

Inappropriate post-op care, further surgery, vomit

50

Inappropriate post-op care, further surgery, vomit

Bailey v MoD

51

Bailey v MoD judgment

Negligence led to C's weakness, which was cumulative cause of brain damage

52

What case shows the operation of material contribution to injury test outside of employment-related injuries?

Bailey v MoD

53

Bailey on material contribution to injury test

Should be confined to situations satisfying 'but for' test in normal way for coherence

54

Stapleton on material contribution to injury test

Any positive mechanism by which the injury occurred should be causal, but THEN consider if C can claim

55

Who said any positive mechanism by which the injury occurred should be causal?

Stapleton

56

Who thought the material contribution to injury test should be confined to situations satisfying 'but for' test in normal way for coherence?

Bailey

57

Miller on the material contribution to injury test

If D's negligence is one of two or more alternative causes, need to satisfy 'but for', but if cumulative then evidential hurdle is lower

58

Who criticised the material contribution to injury test for lowering the evidential hurdle based on the type of injury?

Miller

59

Rahman v Arearose Ltd general

Workplace beating, blind in right eye from hospital

60

Rahman v Arearose ltd judgment

Confirmed proportionate damages are awarded even where causative factors operate concurrently

61

What case Confirmed proportionate damages are awarded even where causative factors operate concurrently

Rahman v Arearose ltd

62

Weir on Rahman v Arearose ltd

No scientific basis for attribution of causality in this way - C is not half mad because of X and half made because of Y

63

Who said that C is 'as mad as he is because of what both of them did', criticising attribution of causality in Rahman v Arearose ltd?

Weir

64

Workplace beating, blind in right eye from hospital

Rahman v Arearose ltd

65

What two academics debate over the proper application of the material contribution test?

Miller and Bailey

66

Bailey on the proper application of the material contribution test

It is a particular application of 'but for' test for cumulatively caused injuries

67

Why did Miller reject Bailey's view that material contribution to injury is just a particular application of 'but for' test?

Bonnington wasn't dependent on knowledge of magnitude or even existence of threshold in relationship linking dust concentration to respiratory function

68

When is the material contribution to risk test used?

When C can't prove D's negligence either made a difference OR that D materially contributed - just increased likelihood C would suffer

69

McGhee v National Coal Board general

Brick kilns, cycle not shower, dermatitis

70

Brick kilns, cycle not shower, dermatitis

McGhee v National Coal Board

71

McGhee v National Coal Board judgment

Material increase in risk the same as material contribution to injury

72

Why could C in McGhee v National Coal Board not use but for or material contribution to injury?

Divergent medical opinion and can't prove difference due to lack of medical info

73

Wilsher v Essex AHA general

Newborn baby, RLF

74

Newborn baby, RLF

Wilsher v Essex AHA

75

Wilsher v Essex AHA judgment

Rejected material contribution to risk is the same as injury - required single agent before departing from but for or material contribution to injury test

76

what distinguished McGhee from Wilsher?

Only one agent involved in McGhee, as opposed to 5 independent possible causes in Wilsher

77

How many independent possible causes were there in Wilsher?

5

78

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services general

Mesothelioma, many employers, delayed symptoms

79

Mesothelioma, many employers, delayed symptoms

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services

80

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services judgment

Proving increase in risk is enough for causation

81

In what case did the HoL cast doubt on McGhee saying material increase in risk is the same as injury?

Wilsher v Essex AHA

82

What case reiterated the view of McGhee in Wilsher?

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services

83

What did the HoL in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services use McGhee as?

The 'fons et origo' of the principle of material contribution to risk

84

What were the HoL careful to say in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services?

Reasoning only applied to facts of Fairchild

85

Per Lord Bingham, what is the situation needed for material contribution to risk test to apply?

Exposure in workplace, range of negligent exposures and no other significant background cause that might explain the illness (single agent)

86

Who doubted the single agent point in Fairchild?

Hoffmann

87

Who gave the three things needed to use material contribution to risk test, and in what case?

Lord Bingham in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services

88

In what case did Hoffmann show a reluctant withdrawal from his scepticism towards the single agent point in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services?

Baker v Corus

89

What did Hoffmann say of the test formulated in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services extra-judicially?

He and the other Law Lords 'failed [the] test quite badly' of creating coherent and principled exceptions

90

What judge stated extra-judicially that He and the other Law Lords 'failed [the] test quite badly' of creating coherent and principled exceptions in Fairchild?

Lord Hoffmann

91

Barker v Corus general

Asbestos from employer and self-employed

92

Asbestos from employer and self-employed

Barker v Corus

93

Barker v Corus judgment

Not necessary for all exposures to be tortious, and C's personal carelessness doesn't prevent Fairchild but may be reflected in CN damages

94

What case showed not necessary for all exposures in material contribution to risk to be tortious?

Barker v Corus

95

What did Lord Hoffmann require there be to limit the material contribution to risk test in Barker?

Single agent

96

What is recovery under material contribution to risk?

Severable

97

What case gave that recovery under material contribution to risk is severable?

Barker v Corus

98

What were the court split on in Barker v Corus?

Apportionment of damages

99

What did the majority say on recovery in Barker?

Only proportional recovery to risk increased

100

What did the minority say on recovery in Barker?

Had to be liable for everything, with onus on D to join others responsible under classic causation rules

101

What did Lord Rodger say to reject proportionate damages in Barker?

In effect allows recovery fro loss of chance

102

Compensation Act 2006 s.3

Adopted Rodger's approach in Barker for mesothelioma cases caused by asbestos

103

What Act adopted Rodger's approach in Barker?

Compensation Act 2006 s.3

104

Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) general

Asbestos fibres from negligence and environment

105

Asbestos fibres from negligence and environment

Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK)

106

Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) judgment

Rejected s.3 CA 2006 created special rule for mesothelioma - common law rules on causation are the same

107

What case Rejected s.3 CA 2006 created special rule for mesothelioma - common law rules on causation are the same

Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK)

108

Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) on rock of uncertainty

It explains why there is a departure from normal causation rules in material contribution to risk - once rock is removed, rule would disappear

109

In what case was it made clear that s.3 CA06 only applies if material risk is held to establish causal link - exposure does not automatically satisfy causation?

Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK)

110

What case do L&O contrast Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) with?

Hotson v East Berks

111

Why do L&O contrast Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) with Hotson?

To show distinction between scientific and personal uncertainty, where only the former allows material contribution to risk test

112

What is scientific uncertainty?

Can't say what amount of harm is needed to cause the injury

113

What is personal uncertainty?

Can't say if C has suffered known amount of harm to cause the given injury

114

Who first began to express concern about Fairchild, and in what case?

Lord Brown in Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK)

115

What was Lord Brown sceptical of in Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) ?

'Rock of uncertainty' to demarcate cases where Fairchild applies from those where it doesn't

116

Durham v BAI (Run Off) general

Insurance policy

117

Durham v BAI (Run Off) judgment

Crucial C actually suffers mesothelioma, not JUST increase in risk

118

what case made it clear that C actually needs to suffer mesothelioma to use material contribution to risk test?

Durham v BAI (Run Off)

119

Who echoed Brown in Sienkiewicz in Durham v BAI (Run Off)?

Neuberger

120

What did Neuberger say in Durham v BAI (Run Off) of Fairchild?

Given problems defining its scope, better to have left it to P

121

According to Lord Mance in Durham v BAI (Run Off), legal responsibility is for what under material contribution to risk test?

Disease itself on a 'weak' view of causal link, rather than for risk created by exposing C to disease

122

What judge in what case stated legal responsibility is for disease itself under material contribution to risk test

Lord Mance in Durham v BAI (Run Off)

123

Who suggested in Durham v BAI (Run Off) that courts should have left it to P in Fairchild?

Lord Neuberger

124

What happens if damage under the material contribution to risk test is indivisible?

Still proportionate damages

125

Hoffmann extra-judicially on Fairchild and judgment in Sienkiewicz

Wished they had rejected Fairchild in Sienkiewicz and left it to P to come up with a more conservative approach

126

What did Laleng say of Fairchild?

It is implicit that it is limited to mesothelioma

127

Why is Laleng's view of Fairchild doubted?

Hoffmann stated it would be an arbitrary distinction which courts could not make to limit Fairchild just to mesothelioma

128

Millett on material contribution to risk potential cases extra-judicially

To apply outside mesothelioma, C would need to show similar 'rock of uncertainty'

129

Who said it would be an arbitrary distinction which courts could not make to limit Fairchild just to mesothelioma?

Hoffmann

130

Who said it was implicit that Fairchild is limited to mesothelioma?

Laleng

131

Why do L&O think Wilsher would now be excluded from material contribution to risk?

Not single agent and nature of evidential certainty was such that they knew how it was caused, just hard to prove attribution to D's neligence

132

How do L&O explain the move from normal negligence damages to proportionate in material contribution to risk?

C already benefitting from relaxation of ordinary causation rules so would be too lenient

133

Who explain why damages are proportionate in material contribution to risk?

L&O

134

Ibbetson and Steele on material contribution to risk

Unjust that negligent Ds as a group are privileged over mesothelioma suffers, which would be the consequence under ordinary rules

135

Who explains the position under material contributon to risk as avoiding the unjust result that negligent Ds are privileged over mesothelioma sufferers?

Ibbetson and Steele

136

How do L&O adopt Ibbetson and Steele's argument on material contribution to show it could apply to more situations than just mesothelioma?

Whenever uncertainty is personal to C, negligent Ds may be privileged over Cs, so should extend to these situations

137

When is the 'doubling the risk' approach considered more appropriate?

When multiple causes are involved

138

Who proposed the 'doubling the risk' approach?

Lords Phillips and Dyson in Sienkiewicz

139

What did Kerr say of the doubling the risk approach?

Real danger that such evidence has a false air of authority

140

Who thought epidemiological evidence has a real danger of having a false air of authority?

Kerr

141

What did the other members of the SC say in Sienkiewicz with regard to epidemiological evidence for doubling the risk approach?

Need evidence linking disease in the individual C to D's negligence - evidence tends to focus on GENERAL, not specific

142

What case required epidemiological evidence to link disease in individual C to D's negligence - not just GENERAL evidence?

Sienkiewicz

143

Who said Fairchild is a 'de facto mesothelioma exception'?

Laleng

144

Why did Laleng see Fairchild as a 'de facto mesothelioma exception'?

Rock of uncertainty doesn't seem to have been reached in any other case

145

West v MoD general

PTSD

146

West v MoD judgment

Fairchild did not apply for PTSD

147

Calvert v William Hill Credit

Fairchild did not apply for gambling addiction

148

Wootton v J Doctor

Fairchild did not apply for an unwanted pregnancy

149

Name at least two cases where Fairchild did not apply because no rock of uncertainty

Wootton v J Doctor; Calvert v William Hill Credit; West v MoD

150

What is a case of indeterminate defendants?

Two or more Ds have acted tortuously towards D, who suffers injury but cannot determine who caused it

151

What vital case is an example of indeterminate defendants?

Fairchild

152

What vital case is NOT an example of indeterminate defendants?

McGhee

153

Summers v Tice general

Shooting in C's direction

154

Shooting in C's direction

Summers v Tice

155

Summers v Tice judgment

Claim of alternative liability, so both Ds equally culpable unless absolved

156

Fairchild on indeterminate defendants

Per Lord Bingham, most jurisdictions would afford a remedy to C in same circumstances

157

What judge and in what case highlighted how most jurisdictions would afford a remedy to C in a case of indeterminate defendants?

Lord Bingham in Fairchild

158

Fitzgerald v Lane general

Pedesterian, two cars, tetraplegia

159

Fitzgerald v Lane judgment

Followed Fairchild - both drivers liable

160

Sindell v Abott Laboratories general

Vaginal cancerous lesions, 200 manufacturers, genetic defect of drug

161

Sindell v Abott Laboratories judgment

All manufacturers liable in proportion to market shares

162

What case on indeterminate Ds was from the US?

Sindell v Abott Laboratories

163

What judge and in what case criticised Sindell v Abott Laboratories?

Hoffmann in Fairchild

164

What did Hoffmann say of market-share liability imposed in Sindell v Abott Laboratories ?

Declined to speculate if it would be imposed in English law

165

How did Hoffmann in Fairchild criticise Sindell v Abott Laboratories?

Additional manufacturers did not materially increase risk of injury, so fell outside of the Fairchild principle

166

Why did the case of Sindell v Abott Laboratories fall outside the Fairchild principle, according to Hoffmann?

Additional manufacturers did not materially increase risk of injury

167

In what case was loss of chance recovery clearly rejected?

Hotson v East Berkshire AHA

168

What case showed the HoL being asked to reconsider Hotson v East Berkshire AHA on loss of chance?

Gregg v Scott

169

Gregg v Scott general

Lump under arm, 9 months, cancerous, 42% to 25%

170

Lump under arm, 9 months, cancerous, 42% to 25%

Gregg v Scott

171

What was C suing for in Gregg v Scott?

Loss of expectation of lifr

172

Why was C unable to recover in Gregg v Scott?

Balance of probabilities showed C probably wouldn't have survived even if started treatment 9 months earlier

173

What did Gregg v Scott show about recovery for loss of chance?

Not given outside of Fairchid

174

what two reasons did HoL give in Gregg for no recovery for lost chance?

C has not yet suffered harm, and balance of probabilities creates a roughness of justice which is just the way it is, to avoid the problematic valuing damage for lost chances

175

Why was it an issue that C had no yet suffered harm in Gregg?

Per Hale, the coin was still in the air - compensation would regard loss of chance as an asset in itself which has been damaged

176

What did the HoL highlight to be a particular problem in Gregg to allow loss of chance recovery?

Problematic and inappropriate for negligence to embark on valuing damage through lost chances

177

What judge in minority in Gregg refused to accept likelihood of damage made quantum too difficult?

Lord Nicholls

178

Who highlighted that 45% chance of recovery is just as much of a loss as 55%, so why only allow recovery for the latter?

Nicholls in Gregg

179

Who said it would be 'seriously deficient' not to recognise negligent diagnosis/treatment diminishing prospect of recovery as a wrong?

Nicholls in Gregg

180

What distinction did Nicholls draw in Gregg?

Between evidential and scientific uncertainty, where only the latter is sufficient for a claim

181

Who argued loss of chance of avoiding cancer could be claimed as consequential upon physical injury in Gregg?

Lord Hope

182

What case rejected Lord Hope's argument in Gregg?

Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating

183

Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating general

Asymptomatic pleural placques

184

Why did Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating reject Hope in Gregg?

Mere presence of physical change not increasing likelihood of disease cannot ground a claim for consequential injury based on chance of contracting disease in future

185

What case made it clear that the Mere presence of physical change not increasing likelihood of disease cannot ground a claim for consequential injury based on chance of contracting disease in future?

Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating

186

Why did Hoffmann apply Hotson in Gregg?

Couldn't distinguish the case

187

Hale in Gregg

Allowing both loss of an outcome and loss of a chance would be very favourable to C and require more complex evidence, introducing unpredictability

188

What judge in Gregg stated that allowing both loss of an outcome and chance would be too favourable to C?

Hale

189

Who worried about the unpredictability of the law if loss of a chance were allowed, and in what case?

Hale

190

What three judges were in the majority in Gregg?

Hale, Hoffmann and Phillips

191

What three judges were in the minority in Gregg?

Nicholls and Hope

192

Who found it unsatisfactory in Gregg that PEL recovery is allowed but not loss of a chance in personal injury?

Hale

193

How did Phillips categorise Hotson?

A case about an adverse outcome, not loss of chance

194

What judge in majority in Gregg left open award for loss of chance?

Phillips

195

How did Phillips leave open award for loss of chance in Gregg?

Hotson was about adverse outcome, not loss of chance

196

What scenario did phillips reject in Gregg?

Coin in the air scenario - can't claim for loss of chance when there is no actual injury yet

197

What did Hoffmann say extra-judicially about causation rules?

Difficulties arise from different causation rules depending on time action is brought

198

Who highlighted the difficulties which arise from different causation rules depending on time action is brought?

Hoffmann, extra-judicially

199

Who highlighted the difficulty of assessing damage value of loss of chance, such that it doesn't end up compensating for the injury itself without fulfilling balance of probabilities?

Voyiakis

200

Why was Voyiakis sceptical about recovery for loss of chance?

Difficulty in assessing damage

201

What is the difficulty Voyiakis highlights with assessing damage for loss of chance?

If by reference to ultimate injury, reducing based on chance of avoiding it, this compensates the injury itself without establishing balance of probabilities

202

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group on loss of chance

Lords Neuberger and Elias LJ felt Gregg suggested loss of chance should have no place in personal injury actions

203

What two judges in what case felt Gregg suggested loss of chance should have no place in personal injury actions?

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group, per Lords Neuberger and Elias LJ

204

Tabett v Gett

HC of Australia rejected loss of chance as compensatable in negligence, at least for pI

205

What case shows another jurisdiction rejecting loss of chance as compensatable in negligence, at least for personal injury, and what jurisdiction?

Tabett v Gett, HC of Australia

206

Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons general

Protection for contingent liabilities, deletion of warranty

207

What was it only necessary to show in Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons?

C would have relied on proper advice if given

208

What was it NOT necessary to show in Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons?

3rd would have given protection to C on a balance

209

How does Coote explain Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons ?

Loss of chance had economic value, which would be artificial in personal injury claim

210

What case shows different treatment between loss of chance for economic loss and for personal injury?

Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons

211

What is the rationale for novus actus?

'Fairness' (Corr v IBC Vehicles)

212

What case stated that NA acts for 'fairness'?

Corr v IBC Vehiclesl

213

Latin name for intervening acts

Novus actus interveniens

214

What judges in Wright v Cambridge Medical Group stated that 'considerations of policy loom large' in NA?

Elias LJ

215

In what case did Elias LJ state 'considerations of policy loom large' in NA?

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group

216

Empress Car v National Rivers

Drum of diesel, 3rd party tap

217

What did Lord Hoffmann say courts should look for for NA in Empress?

Deliberate human acts/extraordinary natural events

218

What did Lord Hoffmann in Empress say courts should consider before attributing responsibility?

Scope and purpose of rule in respect of which responsibility is being applied

219

What Act removed CN as a complete defence?

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

220

What did the LR(CN)A allow courts to do?

Apportion damages where both D and C's fault is causally relevant

221

Yachuk v Oliver Blais general

Wild west

222

Yachuk v Oliver Blais judgment

Chain not broken as carelessness exactly the kind of thing that might have been expected

223

What case suggests less is expected from children, and thus no NA for their negligence?

Yachuk v Oliver Blais

224

McKew v Holland & Hannen general

Occasional numbness, jumped down stairs

225

McKew v Holland and Hannen judgment

Jumping alone wouldn't have broken chain because panic, but walking down steep stairs w/o handrail or help did

226

What is more likely to have been used now in McKew?

CN - chain not broken

227

Spencer v Wincanton Holdings general

Petrol amputee

228

Spencer v Wincanton Holdings judgment

Per Sedley J, 'unreasonableness' is from irrationality to simple unwisdom, but only McKew unreasonable gives NA

229

What case shows a degree of tension between unreasonableness which is an NA, and unreasonableness which leads to CN?

Spencer v Wincanton Holdings

230

Petrol amputee

Spencer v Wincanton Holdings

231

What judge and in what case showed the broad ambit of 'unreasonableness', but required high degree for NA?

Sedley J in Spencer v Wincanton Holdings

232

Jump flight of stairs

McKew v Holland and Hannen

233

Knightley v Johns general

One-way tunnel in Birmingham

234

Knightley v Johns judgment

Broken by inspector negligence, with key factor being the NUMBER of acts of carelessness

235

What did the court stress about rescuers in Knightley v Johns?

Rescuer won't generally be denied a claim based on carelessness

236

What did Stephenson LJ highlight in Knightley v Johns?

Number of errors made the result unanticipated, emphasising deliberate disregard of police standing orders

237

What judge in Knightley v Johns emphasised that the number of errors made the result unanticipated, emphasising deliberate disregard of police standing orders?

Stephenson LJ

238

What did Stephenson LJ say of the specific requirement for rescuer's negligent act to be an NA in Knightley?

'Wanton interference or disregard for rescuer's own safety'

239

Baker v TE Hopkins general

Doctor, two workers in well

240

Baker v TE Hopkins judgment

Rescuer needs to act with 'wanton disregard' before NA of rescuer whose actions were necessitated by D's negligence

241

Sayers v Harlow general

Locked in loo, climbed out

242

Locked in loo

Sayers v Harlow

243

Well, two workers

Baker v TE Hopkins

244

Sayers v Harlow judgment

Seemingly unreasonable conduct necessitated by D's negligence may not always be NA if reasonable in circumstances

245

What Act allowed apportionment of damages between tortfeasors whose contribution has affected judgments on whether intervening 3rd negates responsibility?

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

246

What is the usual finding for damage under Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 if several tortfeasors are responsible in the same way, for the same damage

Joint and several liability

247

What happens if one D is bankrupt/insolvent under Civil Liability (Contribution) Act?

Share of the others, if jointly and severally liable, increases proportionately

248

The Oropesa general

Collision, lifeboat capsized

249

The Oropesa judgment

Emergency situation made decision by 2nd D unlikely to be negligent/break causal link

250

The Oropesa emphasised what in regard to the situation of C in the case?

'in a very perilous plight'

251

Collision, lifeboat capsized

The Oropesa

252

Webb v Barclays Bank

Suggested only gross negligence in relation to intervening medical treatment will break causal link

253

What case suggests only gross negligence in relation to intervening medical treatment will break causal link?

Webb v Barclays Bank

254

Mahony v Krushich

Apportionment fairest when both original and subsequently negligent parties before court

255

Why was it suggested apportionment fairest when both original and subsequent negligent parties are before court in Mahony v Krushich?

Risk of negligent medical treatment entailed by initial injury, so shouldn't end 1st D's responsibility

256

What case stated that apportionment is fairest when both original and subsequent negligent parties are before court ?

Mahony v Krushich

257

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group general

Untimely reference, negligent treatment

258

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group per Lord Neuberger

Only serious or gross negligent would prevent 1st D's initial negligence from being a cause

259

What did Elias and Smith LJJ in Wright v Cambridge highlight?

Doctor's negligence was still A factual cause - intervening negligence did not negate his responsibility

260

Stapleton on Wright v Camrbidge

Neutral language of causation masked value judgments

261

What judges in Wright v Cambridge focused on whether or not 1st D's negligence was still a factual cause?

Elias and Smith LJJ

262

What judge in Wright v Cambridge required serious or gross negligence by 2nd D before 1st D's negligence no longer a cause?

Lord Neuberger

263

What two cases did L&O give for when 1st D's liability can be ended?

By NA or if D's DoC to C is limited

264

Who criticised the case of Wright v Cambridge for masking value judgments?

Stapleton

265

How did Stapleton argue they masked value judgments in Wright v Cambridge?

Through neutral language of causation

266

Rouse v Squires general

Lorry pile up

267

Rouse v Squires judgment

Responsibility apportioned 25/75 between original lorry and fourth driver

268

What was highlighted in Rouse v Squires to justify apportionment?

Lack of sufficient time to notice accident and evade

269

Lorry pile up

Rouse v Squires

270

Wright v Lodge general

Car broken down, carriageway

271

Wright v Lodge judgment

1st driver negligent not to push off, so 10% to passenger, but lorry sole cause of injuries to other drivers

272

Car broken down, carriageway

Wright v Lodge

273

What was the percentage of responsibility apportioned to driver of car broken down in Wright v Lodge, and to who?

10% to his passenger

274

Why is Wright v Lodge hard to understand?

Why is causation denied to injuries arising as a consequence of the initial hit?

275

Froom v Butcher general

Seatbelt

276

Froom v Butcher on Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Guidelines of 25% are appropriate when determining apportionment under this Act (to 1st D probably?)

277

When can a deliberate act not break the chain of causation?

D under an exceptional duty to take care to prevent 3rd injuring C

278

Lamb v Camden LBC general

Landowner, damage by squatters

279

Landowner, damage by squatters

Lamb v Camden LBC

280

Lamb v Camden LBC judgment

If duty to prevent squatters' deliberate behaviour, cannot complain behaviour was NA

281

Why couldn't they claim squatters' deliberate behaviour was NA in Lamb v Camden LBC?

The behaviour was the occasion of the breach of duty

282

Corr v IBC Vehicles general

Disfigurement, clinical depression, suicide

283

Corr v IBC Vehicles on NA

Chain not broken by deliberate act of C as depression impaired ability/capacity to make a reasoned judgment.

284

What case showed that whether a deliberate act is NA depends on the capacity of C to make a reasoned judgment?

Corr v IBC Vehicles

285

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police general

Suicide, depressed prisoner

286

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester judgement

Responsible for creating environment in which V's suicidal tendencies developed

287

Name at least two cases considering suicide as a deliberate act for NA

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester; Corr v IBC Vehicles; Reeves v MPC

288

Empress Car on deliberate acts as NA

Chain not broken because policy of pollution offence was to require occupants to take all possible steps to stop such behaviour

289

What three cases show the courts explicitly looking to the nature of D's duty to determine if deliberate act was NA or not?

Empress Car; Lamb v Camden LBC; Reeves v MPC

290

Reeves v MPC confirmed what case?

Empress

291

Reeves v MPC on deliberate acts as NA

Sound of mind at time of suicide, so voluntary BUT duty to prevent self-harming so no NA

292

Who expressed concern about medical evidence in Reeves v MPC?

Hoffmann

293

Why was there no NA in Reeves v MPC?

Would make a nonsense of the rule imposing duty if very act it was supposed to protect was an NA

294

Keenan v UK

Once prisoner is suicide risk, Article 2 requires reasonable steps to prevent suicide

295

Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

No general duty to prevent harm if no suicide risk

296

Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

No duty to stop persons they are attempting to arrest from harming themselves

297

What case shows Reeves v MPC is consistent with Article 2 ECHR?

Keenan v UK

298

No duty to stop persons they are attempting to arrest from harming themselves

Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

299

No general duty to prevent harm if no suicide risk

Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Decks in Law Second Year Class (62):