Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What are the two types of causation |
factual and legal |
|
|
what is legal causation |
the ‘real’/‘operative’ cause in law |
|
|
what are the two things tht need to be examined for legal causation |
remoteness of damage any intervening acts |
|
|
what does remoteness of damage ask |
whether consequences of the action are so far removed to be unforeseeable by D at the time the action occurred |
|
|
what case where a thin film of oil was spilt and caught on fire was held as being to remote a damage |
The Wagon Mound No1 |
|
|
what case and test did The Wagon Mound No1 narrow down |
Re Polemis test |
|
|
what did the Re Polemis test say |
D was liable for all physical consequences of their negligent act |
|
|
what did the court say in The Wagon Mound No1 |
the damage suffered by C has to be reasonably foreseeable at the time the breach occurred |
|
|
what did The Wagon Mound No1 say the type of damage has to be |
only look at whether some damage is foreseeable - the extent of the damage isn’t important |
|
|
what case was asbestos lid knocked into hot liquid bubbling up and burning C |
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co |
|
|
what was held in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co |
the chemical reaction was unforeseeable a splash is foreseeable but thats not what happened so legal causation cant be satisfied |
|
|
what happened in Hughes v Lord Advocate |
little boy knocks praffin lamp into manhole and falls in gets seriously burned |
|
|
what was held in Hughes v Lord Advocate |
the burns were foreseeable and how the burns occurred dont matter |
|
|
how is injury interpreted in modern day by the courts |
more broadly |
|
|
what is the aim of the eggshell skull rule |
protects C from ‘extreme damage’ they suffer because of susceptibility and weaknesses |
|
|
what case where D burns her lip but gets cancer because of a pre-cancerous skin condition does the court solidify the principle of the eggshell skull rule and taking your victim as you find them |
Smith v Leech Brain |
|
|
what case says the eggshell skull rule applies to economic harms |
Lagden v O’Connor |
|
|
what does intervening acts consist of |
whether the chain of causation has been broken |
|
|
what case says that deliberately wrongful acts like crimes will constitute as an intervening act |
Weld-Blundell v Stephens |
|
|
in what case did Lord Reid say the subsequent negligent act of a third party must have been something very likely to happen |
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd |
|
|
in what case where there was a lorry motorway crash were both drivers held liable and damages split between them rather than it being considered as an intervening act |
Rouse v Squires |
|
|
What statute says that courts can easily apportion damage between responsible parties |
Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978 |
|
|
what case where a man throws himself off a steep stairwell because of a previous leg injury from work was denied because c’s own negligence was so careless that it removes responsibility from the original defendant |
McKew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts |
|
|
what case contradicts the ruling in McKew v Holland about C who has to wear a neckbrace so is unable to wear glasses and falls down stairs injuring her ankle but D is held to still be liable because C was as careful as she couldve been |
Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets |
|
|
what case shows a claimant comitting a criminal act after a train crash and this being a break in the chain of causation |
Gray v Thames Trains |
|
|
why is the decisions in Daughty v Turner Manufacturing Co and Hughes v Lord Advocate problematic |
they contradict each other policy reasons decided 2 years after the wagon mound - courts still trying to adjust more sympathy because Hughes is about a child? |
