HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Michaela
  • Created on: 30-01-13 00:32
View mindmap
  • Causation
    • Relationship between two events, whereby the first event caused the second to happen.
    • Causation is decided by the "but for" test., but for the defendants breach, would the loss have occurred. If the answer is the loss would still have occurred then it must have been caused by something other than the defendants negligence. Defendant therefore not liable.
      • E.g. McWilliams V Arrol Ltd (1962)- Claimant scaffolder had been supplied by his employer with correct safety harness, fell and was killed. Defendant clearly owed a duty of care and has equally breached the duty by not supplying the harness. Claim failed because employer was able to show that the claimant wouldn't have worn the harness even if it had been supplied, exeperienced workers in this industry dont.
    • Remoteness of Damage
      • Defendant is not liable for those losses which are too far removed from his actions.
      • Test for remoteness of damage is whether a loss is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendants negligence. If a loss is not reasonably foreseeable then its not recoverable.
        • 1. King of damage caused- general type of damage is reasonably foreseeable then it doesnt matter the precise form which occured was not. Seen in Bradford V Robinson Rentals (1967)
        • 2. Sequence of Events is not foreseeable- Damage which occurred was reasonably foreseeable, its not neccesary to oversee the precise sequence of events that led to the damage. Seen in Hughes V Kird Advocate (1963)
        • 3. Extent of the damage- Provided that some of the damage is reasonably foreseeable, claimant can claim for the full extent of his loss. Seen in Vacwell  Engineering V BDH Chemicals (1970)
      • Intervening Causes-Something or someone forming a link between the actions of the defendant and the loss suffered by the claimant.
        • The something or someone else is called intervening cause, law has to decide which intervening causes are sufficently significant as to free the defendant from liablity, in to other words which intervening act causes break the chain of causation.
        • Second way in  which contributory negligence can be applied is where the claimant is not to blame for the accident, but his actions  made his injuries or losses worse than they should have been. E.g. Not wearing a seatbelt in a car (froom V Butcher (1975) and not wearing a crash helmet on a motorbike (O'connell V Jackson (1971))
    • Consent
      • Defence can be used when a claimant is aware that the defendant may act negligently but agree to the risk.
      • E.g. Morris V Murray (1990). Claimant and the defendant spend several hours drinking, decided to go for a trip in the defendants aircraft. Plane crashed, defendant was killed and claimant badlu injured. Claimants subsequent action against the estate of the pilot for his undoubted negligence failed, claimant was fully aware of the risk of negligence on the part of the defendant, decided to go in the plan anyway.


No comments have yet been made

Similar resources:

See all resources »See all resources »