3 Causation Of Damage - Tort Revision Gdl

Front 1

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

Back 1

'But for' test

Front 2

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

Back 2

The burden falls on the claimant to prove that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm on the balance of probabilities.

Front 3

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw

Back 3

In a multiple cause case the claimant need not show that the defendant's breach of duty was the only cause of the damage, just that it materially contributed to the damage

Front 4

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 ss 1(1) and 2(1)

Back 4

Where 2 or more people are responsible for the same damage, the courts have the power to apportion the damage between them (applies only between the defendants themselves, does not affect the damages recovered by the claimant)

Front 5

Fairchild v Glenhaven

Back 5

Allowed the claimants to rely upon a material increase in risk approach

Front 6

Sienkiewicz v Grief

Back 6

Suggested that the principle of material increase in risk is now strictly limited to cases of scientific uncertainty - mesothelioma may be only such case

Front 7

Performance Cars v Abraham

Back 7

Where a claimant (or his property) has already suffered damage, a later defendant who causes subsequent injury should be liable only to the extent that he makes the claimant's damage worse

Front 8

Rahman v Arearose

Back 8

Psychiatric problems constitute a divisible injury

Front 9

Scott v Shepherd

Back 9

Instinctive reactions in a moment of alarm do not break the chain of causation

Front 10

McKew v Holland

and

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd

Back 10

To amount to a novus actus interveniens the claimant's act has to be entirely unreasonable in all the circumstances

Front 11

The Wagon Mound (No 1)

Back 11

Test for remoteness of damage is one of reasonable forseeability.

Is the damage such that the reasonable person would have foreseen it?

Front 12

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Back 12

Provided the type of injury is reasonably foreseeable, it is not necessary to foresee the precise way in which the injury is caused

Front 13

Nettleship v Weston

Back 13

For the defence of voluntary assumption of risk to succeed, defendant must establish:

1) That the claimant had full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk, and

2) The claimant willingly consented to accept the risk of being injured due to the defendant's negligence

Front 14

Dann v Hamilton

Back 14

Knowledge of the risk not necessarily sufficient to imply consent to the risk

Front 15

Section 149 Road Traffic Act 1988

Back 15

Applies to any motor vehicle where insurance for passengers is compulsory - defence of volenti cannot be relied on

Front 16

Haynes v Harwood

Back 16

Rules on rescuers apply equally to professional rescuers and to lay persons

Front 17

Pitts v Hunt

Back 17

That the claimant was involved in an illegal enterprise at the time he was injured may sometimes provide the defendant with a defence - 'ex turpi causa non oritur actio', no action arises from a disgraceful cause

Front 18

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

Back 18

Where claimant suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of another:

a) A claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the claimant

b) damages recoverable shall be reduced to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable

Front 19

Froom v Butcher

Back 19

Likely % reduction for contrib neg:

C suffered injuries which would have been prevented had a seatbelt been worn - 25%

C.... less severe had a seatbelt been worn - 15%

Seatbelt would have made no difference - 0%

Front 20

Capps v Miller

Back 20

Same tariff as set out in Froom v Butcher in regard to failure to wear crash helmet

Front 21

Owens v Brimmell

Back 21

Passengers who accept lifts from a driver whom they know to be drunk, can expect to have damages reduced, even if they were drunk themselves

Front 22

Gough v Thornet

Back 22

Test in deciding whether a child has been contributorily negligent - whether an ordinary child of the claimant's age would have taken more care for his safety than the claimant did

Front 23

Baker v T E Hopkins & Son Ltd

Back 23

A rescuer will be judged against the standard of the reasonable rescuer. Only if a rescuer has shown a 'wholly unreasonable disregard for his or her own safety' is there likely to be a finding of contributory negligence

Front 24

Knightley v Johns

Back 24

Negligent acts only break chain of causation if unforeseeable

Front 25

Robinson v Post Office

Back 25

Egg shell skull rule