Tort: Negligence - Causation, Remoteness, Defences and Remedies Flashcards

Question

What is the significance of the material contribution test?

Answer 1

It is applied when multiple causes operated together to cause the claimant's loss. ## Footnote This may replace the 'but for' test in complex cases.

Answer 2

It is the calculation of damages when multiple tortious factors have caused part of the loss. ## Footnote Courts apportion liability to provide fair compensation relative to each defendant's fault.

Answer 3

Each defendant was found liable for 25% of the claimant's losses due to shared negligence. ## Footnote The claimant's own negligence accounted for the remaining 50%.

Answer 4

Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire sum of damages. ## Footnote This allows claimants to recover full damages from any negligent employer.

Answer 5

It refers to situations where distinct causes lead to the same damage, with each cause passing the 'but for' test. ## Footnote Courts consider the timing and nature of subsequent events in assigning liability.

Answer 6

The second defendant was not liable if they caused no additional damage. ## Footnote The first event's damage was already accounted for before the second event occurred.

Answer 7

It assesses whether there are grounds to regard the link between breach and damage as broken. ## Footnote This involves considering intervening acts that could disrupt causation.

Answer 8

* Acts of God or natural events * Acts of third parties * Acts of the claimant ## Footnote These categories help determine liability when subsequent events occur.

Answer 9

In Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government, a storm damaged a vessel after a collision. ## Footnote The storm was considered a novus actus interveniens, absolving the defendant from liability for that damage.

Answer 10

If the act is highly unforeseeable, it may break the chain of causation. ## Footnote This was established in Knightley v Johns, where police negligence intervened after an accident.

Answer 11

Something that was very unlikely to happen as a result of the defendant’s negligence

Answer 12

Negligently handled traffic control by a police inspector after a road traffic accident

Answer 13

The negligent handling by the police inspector broke the chain of causation

Answer 14

When the treatment is not so gross and egregious as to be unforeseeable

Answer 15

The negligent failure of the GP practice to refer a child for timely medical treatment

Answer 16

It was not gross or egregious enough to break the chain of causation

Answer 17

The act must be highly unreasonable

Answer 18

Descending a steep staircase without a handrail

Answer 19

Wearing a neck brace that restricted her ability to use glasses

Answer 20

An event that breaks the chain of causation

Answer 21

The defendant is responsible for any loss before the novus actus event but not after it

Answer 22

* Acts of God * Acts of third parties * Acts of claimant

Answer 23

If they are exceptional natural events

Answer 24

They break the chain if they are highly unforeseeable

Answer 25

It is typically dealt with under the defence of contributory negligence

Answer 26

Whether the type of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable at the time the defendant breached their duty of care

Answer 27

The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388

Answer 28

Because the type of damage (fire) was not reasonably foreseeable—experts had advised that the oil would not ignite at welding temperatures

Answer 29

The defendant must have reasonably foreseen that damage of the general kind suffered (e.g., frostbite, psychiatric harm) could occur, even if the precise mechanism was not known

Answer 30

Broadly: frostbite was recoverable because cold-related injuries generally were reasonably foreseeable when the employer failed to maintain heating

Answer 31

Narrowly: Weil’s disease was too remote because rat-bite injuries were foreseeable but infection by rat urine (Weil’s disease) was not a known risk to the farming community

Answer 32

If precautions needed for foreseeable harm are the same as those needed for the specific harm, courts take a broad approach; if special precautions would be required, courts take a narrower view

Answer 33

Held that personal injury, physical or psychiatric, was the type of harm to be foreseen after a road traffic accident, making psychiatric injury recoverable if any personal injury was foreseeable

Answer 34

(1) The exact way the damage occurred; (2) The full extent or magnitude of the damage

Answer 35

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837: burns from a manhole explosion were recoverable even though the boy’s precise actions were unforeseen, because burns generally were foreseeable

Answer 36

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals [1971] 1 QB 88: extensive property damage from a large explosion was recoverable despite only a minor explosion being foreseeable, because the type of damage (explosion damage) was foreseeable

Answer 37

The defendant must take the claimant as they find them and is liable for the full extent of harm, even if a pre-existing condition makes the injury worse

Answer 38

Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 QB 405: defendant was liable for fatal cancer triggered by a burn, even though the cancer risk was due to a pre-existing condition

Answer 39

Yes—defendants are liable for aggravated financial losses due to a claimant’s impecuniosity if any interventions to mitigate would be reasonably foreseeable

Answer 40

Lagden v O’Connor [2004] 1 AC 1067: a claimant’s need to hire a car on credit after an accident was foreseeable, so defendant was liable for higher costs caused by claimant’s lack of funds

Answer 41

The defence of consent: if the claimant voluntarily consents to the risk of injury, they cannot claim for resulting damage

Answer 42

(1) Claimant had capacity to consent; (2) Claimant had full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk; (3) Claimant agreed to run the risk; (4) Agreement was voluntary

Answer 43

Prisoner’s suicide was the very risk police had a duty to prevent, so he lacked capacity to consent to that risk; police could not rely on volenti

Answer 44

The claimant, though drunk, knew the pilot was drunk and still chose to fly, implying voluntary agreement to the high risk of injury

Answer 45

Although the claimant knew the driver was drunk, knowledge alone did not imply voluntary agreement to run the risk of injury

Answer 46

Participants impliedly consent to the inherent risks of the sport but not to reckless or intentional acts outside the sport’s normal conduct

Answer 47

Even if an employee knows of workplace risks, they do not truly volunteer to accept them because they have little choice to keep working

Answer 48

Volenti is unlikely if the claimant acts under a moral impulse to rescue; rescuers are not deemed to have voluntarily assumed the risk (Baker v TE Hopkins & Sons Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966)

Answer 49

RTA 1988 s 149 (prevents drivers using volenti against passenger claims) and UCTA 1977 s 2(3) / CRA 2015 s 65 (awareness of an exclusion clause does not imply consent to risk)

Answer 50

A partial defence where the claimant’s own failure to take reasonable care contributed to their damage, allowing a reduction of damages

Answer 51

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s 1(1)

Answer 52

(a) Claimant failed to take reasonable steps for their own safety; (b) That failure contributed to their damage

Answer 53

Claimants acting reasonably under emergency conditions are less likely to be found contributorily negligent (Jones v Boyce (1816) 1 Stark 493)

Answer 54

The standard of care is that of a reasonable person of similar age and experience; a child is judged against a child’s standard (Gough v Thorne [1966] 3 All ER 398)

Answer 55

Rescuers acting reasonably in an emergency are not normally found contributorily negligent (Baker v TE Hopkins & Sons Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 965)

Answer 56

The claimant’s withdrawal seizures were a medical condition not causing the breach of duty, so attributing fault to his addiction was not equitable

Answer 57

If wearing a seat belt would have reduced or avoided injury, failure to wear one contributes to the damage and leads to a percentage reduction in damages (Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286)

Answer 58

By the court’s discretion to apply a just and equitable percentage reduction, reflecting the claimant’s share of responsibility for their loss

Answer 59

Damages are first reduced against defendants as a whole based on claimant’s fault, then allocated among defendants per their share of liability (Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] AC 328)

Answer 60

A complete defence that bars a claimant’s recovery if their claim is inextricably linked to their own illegal act

Answer 61

To maintain the integrity and consistency of the legal system by refusing to allow claimants to benefit from their own wrongdoing

Answer 62

Did the claimant commit an illegal or grossly immoral act at the time they suffered their loss caused by the defendant?

Answer 63

Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42

Answer 64

(a) Underlying purpose of the prohibition transgressed and whether denial of the claim enhances that purpose; (b) Other public policies that might be undermined by allowing the claim; (c) Whether denying the claim is proportionate to the illegality

Answer 65

Seriousness of the claimant’s conduct, centrality of the illegal act to the claim, whether the conduct was intentional, and disparity in culpability between parties

Answer 66

Held that the claimant’s losses from killing her mother were barred because the criminal act was central to her claim, denying recovery was consistent with public policy, and denial was proportionate

Answer 67

Claimant voluntarily joined defendant’s drunk driving spree; the illegal conduct was the direct cause of the injury, so allowing recovery would undermine public policy

Answer 68

The claimant’s injury was caused by negligent driving, not the criminal act of carrying drugs, so the illegal activity was incidental and did not justify denying recovery

Answer 69

Damages (monetary compensation) and injunctions (orders to compel or restrain conduct)

Answer 70

To put the claimant in the position they would have been in but for the defendant’s tortious act

Answer 71

Special damages (quantifiable losses up to trial) and general damages (future losses and non-quantifiable harm)

Answer 72

Provable and quantifiable financial losses up to the date of trial, such as lost earnings and medical expenses

Answer 73

Non-quantifiable losses and future financial losses, including pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and future loss of earnings

Answer 74

By referring to case precedents (e.g., Kemp & Kemp guidelines) to estimate compensation for non-quantifiable harm

Answer 75

Using a multiplier/multiplicand approach: annual loss is estimated and multiplied by a discount factor (multiplier) to reflect cost of capital and life expectancy

Answer 76

(a) State benefits (e.g., unemployment benefits) that compensate for the same loss; (b) Contractual sick pay; (c) Redundancy payments resulting from injury; any deduction must prevent double recovery

Answer 77

No—charitable contributions, insurance payouts, or gifts do not reduce the damages award

Answer 78

Damages are reduced by a percentage reflecting the claimant’s share of responsibility for their own loss

Answer 79

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, s 1—estate can claim for losses suffered by the deceased up to death

Answer 80

Fatal Accidents Act 1976—dependants can claim for loss of financial support, bereavement award, and funeral expenses

Answer 81

Losses that would have occurred after the date of death (e.g., future loss of earnings beyond death)

Answer 82

A fixed statutory sum awarded to the spouse, civil partner, cohabitee (if two years’ cohabitation), or parents of a minor child, under Fatal Accidents Act 1976

Answer 83

Using a multiplier/multiplicand method with lower multipliers to reflect uncertainty and adjust for the claimant’s life expectancy and family circumstances

Tort: Negligence - Causation, Remoteness, Defences and Remedies Flashcards

(107 cards)