Tortious Liability for Negligence

Created by: NiamhEgypt
Created on: 19-12-19 10:27

View mindmap

Tortious Liability
- Duty of care
  - Personally liable
  - Jointly liable
    - Indepenent
      - Several
        Vision Golf Ltd v Weightmans (2005)
        Defendant can claim a contribution from other tortfeasor.
        
        Each defendant only liable for a portion. If they are insolvent, the C loses out.
    - Several
      - Vision Golf Ltd v Weightmans (2005)
        Defendant can claim a contribution from other tortfeasor.
      - Each defendant only liable for a portion. If they are insolvent, the C loses out.
    - Joint
      - Common design
        Brooke v Boul (1928)
      - Vicarious Liability
        Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
        Section1: a liable person can claim a contribution from another liable person. Jointly liable or otherwise
        
        Section 2 : Guidelines for how much contribution can be claimed.
        
        Fitzgerald v Lane (1989) The court can a party to pay a full indemnity, or excuse them from contributing.
        
        Is the person an employee?
        Contract of service = emplyee; contract for service = contractor.
        
        Control Test
        Ferguson v John Dawson and Partners (Contractors) Ltd (1976)
        
        Servant/ Master relationship leads to vicarious liability.
        
        In modern society, many workers have skills that are not directly supervised.
        
        Business integration test
        Stevenson, Jordan and Harrrison v McDonald and Evans (1952)
        
        Where an employees skills are an integral part of the business, employment exists.
        
        Multiple test
        Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) v Minister of Pensions and NI (1968)
        3 conditions prove employment: agreement of wage for service, agreement that the one party is in control and terms of contract that are consistent with a service contract.
        
        Business on their own account test.
        Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social security (1969)
        Who owns the premises and equipment, who is taking financial risk, hwo is managing and investing?
        
        Business integration test
        Stevenson, Jordan and Harrrison v McDonald and Evans (1952)
        
        Where an employees skills are an integral part of the business, employment exists.
        
        Multiple test
        Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) v Minister of Pensions and NI (1968)
        3 conditions prove employment: agreement of wage for service, agreement that the one party is in control and terms of contract that are consistent with a service contract.
        
        Business on their own account test.
        Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social security (1969)
        Who owns the premises and equipment, who is taking financial risk, hwo is managing and investing?
        
        Relationships 'akin to employment' allowed in Cox v Ministry of Justice (2014)
        Child sex abuse cases are useful for addressing the law regarding definitions of who an employee is and what counts as a close connection.
        Maja v The Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic church (2010) The Roman Catholic Church should be liable for sexual abuse committed by one of its priests on a boy.
        
        JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust (2012) a priest - deocese relationship was akin to employment.
        Confirmed in Cox v Ministry of Justice
        
        Is the person in the course of employment?
        Salmond test
        Closeness test
        Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001)
        Child sex abuse cases are useful for addressing the law regarding definitions of who an employee is and what counts as a close connection.
        Maja v The Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic church (2010) The Roman Catholic Church should be liable for sexual abuse committed by one of its priests on a boy.
        
        JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust (2012) a priest - deocese relationship was akin to employment.
        Confirmed in Cox v Ministry of Justice
        
        Is the tort so closely connected to employment that it is reasonable to hold the employer liable
        Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001)
        
        Employers were liable for an club doorman stabbing someone. Matt's v Pollock (2003)
        
        Gravil v Carroll (2008) The rugby player was seen to be closely connected to his employment when punching another player.
        
        Ministry of Defence v Radcliyffe (2009) The MoD were liable for an officer encouraging a guy to jump off a bridge.
        
        N v Chief Constable of Mereyside (2006) the tort was neither in the course of employment, nor close to his employment. Similar facts to Makanjuola.
        
        Developed to deal with cases with an accusation of intentional wrong doing. Like intentional fraud (Lloyd v Grace Smith and Co) and theft from a cleaner (Morris v Martin)
        
        Mohamud v WM Morrison's (2016) The Supreme court allowed an adjustment to the rule to allow a claim for an action of an employee that would be seen by a reasonable man to be connected to his employer.
        
        Wrongful and unauthorised way of doing an act authorised by the master.
        
        implied authority from employer
        Poland v Parr (1927) The defendant hit a boy for a suspected stealing from his wagon. The employer was liable because there is implied authority to defend the employer.
        
        Personal violence due to revenge does not impose vicarious liability. Warren v Henleys ltd (1948)
        
        employee ignores express instruction
        Limpus v London general Omnibus Co (1862) The employer was liable despite having given an express instruction not to race other drivers.
        
        The employer was liable for the employee throwing a lit match into petrol in Century Insurance Co v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board.
        
        Travelling to and from work is usually outside the course of employment, but in Smith v stages(1989) it was seen that he was in the course of employment.
        
        Closeness test
        Is the tort so closely connected to employment that it is reasonable to hold the employer liable
        Employers were liable for an club doorman stabbing someone. Matt's v Pollock (2003)
        
        Gravil v Carroll (2008) The rugby player was seen to be closely connected to his employment when punching another player.
        
        Ministry of Defence v Radcliyffe (2009) The MoD were liable for an officer encouraging a guy to jump off a bridge.
        
        N v Chief Constable of Mereyside (2006) the tort was neither in the course of employment, nor close to his employment. Similar facts to Makanjuola.
        
        Developed to deal with cases with an accusation of intentional wrong doing. Like intentional fraud (Lloyd v Grace Smith and Co) and theft from a cleaner (Morris v Martin)
        
        Mohamud v WM Morrison's (2016) The Supreme court allowed an adjustment to the rule to allow a claim for an action of an employee that would be seen by a reasonable man to be connected to his employer.
        
        Using unauthorised help..Rose v Plenty (1976) The employer was liable for injuries caused to a boy helping on the milk float.
        
        The employee breaches a statutory duty...Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust (2006)... the employer was liable for the employees harassment under Protection of Harassment Act 1977
        
        Outside the course of employment.
        act is not in the scope of employment e.g Beard v London General Omnibus Co (1900) The employee had a crash whilst turning someone else's bus around. There was no vicarious liability.
        
        Diverting from proper work...Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd (1961) The driver was allowed to use the work van other than for work, but since driving to the tea shop was not part of employment, so there was no vicarious liability.
        Another example is Williams v Hemphill (1966) the accident happened when the driver was taking to please the children. No vicarious liability.
        
        Unauthorised lifts
        Twine v Bean's Express Ltd (1946) the guy was not supposed to give lifts in the work van, so the employer was not liable for the man's injuries.
        
        Young v Edward Box and Co Ltd (1951) The employee gave a lift to another firm's employee. Not only was causing him injury with negligent driving a wrong way of doing the act, it was also an act he was not employed to do.
        
        In excess of proper boundaries...Makanjuola v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (1990) The plain clothes policeman was outside the proper boundaries by entering a place when off duty and demanding sexual favours in exchange for silence about immigration status.
        
        Is the person in the course of employment?
        Salmond test
        Wrongful and unauthorised way of doing an act authorised by the master.
        
        implied authority from employer
        Poland v Parr (1927) The defendant hit a boy for a suspected stealing from his wagon. The employer was liable because there is implied authority to defend the employer.
        
        Personal violence due to revenge does not impose vicarious liability. Warren v Henleys ltd (1948)
        
        employee ignores express instruction
        Limpus v London general Omnibus Co (1862) The employer was liable despite having given an express instruction not to race other drivers.
        
        The employer was liable for the employee throwing a lit match into petrol in Century Insurance Co v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board.
        
        Travelling to and from work is usually outside the course of employment, but in Smith v stages(1989) it was seen that he was in the course of employment.
        
        Using unauthorised help..Rose v Plenty (1976) The employer was liable for injuries caused to a boy helping on the milk float.
        
        The employee breaches a statutory duty...Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust (2006)... the employer was liable for the employees harassment under Protection of Harassment Act 1977
        
        Outside the course of employment.
        act is not in the scope of employment e.g Beard v London General Omnibus Co (1900) The employee had a crash whilst turning someone else's bus around. There was no vicarious liability.
        
        Diverting from proper work...Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd (1961) The driver was allowed to use the work van other than for work, but since driving to the tea shop was not part of employment, so there was no vicarious liability.
        Another example is Williams v Hemphill (1966) the accident happened when the driver was taking to please the children. No vicarious liability.
        
        Unauthorised lifts
        Twine v Bean's Express Ltd (1946) the guy was not supposed to give lifts in the work van, so the employer was not liable for the man's injuries.
        
        Young v Edward Box and Co Ltd (1951) The employee gave a lift to another firm's employee. Not only was causing him injury with negligent driving a wrong way of doing the act, it was also an act he was not employed to do.
        
        In excess of proper boundaries...Makanjuola v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (1990) The plain clothes policeman was outside the proper boundaries by entering a place when off duty and demanding sexual favours in exchange for silence about immigration status.
        
        Common design
        Brooke v Boul (1928)
      - Indepenent
  - Is there a duty of care to psychiatric health?
    - What type of victim?
      - Primary
        Dulieu v White (1901) The first case where nervous shock was allowed. It can be granted for when a victim suffers psychiatricly in face of physical risk, when the psychiatric harm was due to physical harm and when psychiatric harm results from seeing or hearing an event.
        
        Bourhill v Young (1943) first distinction.
        Secondary
        Alcock: 4 stage test.
        1) harm was reasonably forseeable 2)close tie of love to primary victim 3) proximity in time and space 4)witnessed the scene with unaided senses.
        
        The shock must come from one shocking event that involves the sudden appreciation by sight and sound of a horrifying event which violently agitates the mind - Lord Ackner.
        Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters (2002) a series of health related negligent events were considered as one event.
        
        Possible to claim shock from damage to property. Attica v British Gas (1988)
        
        Hambrook v Stokes (2004) psychiatric harm caused by wondering whether her children were harmed by the lorry.
        
        Duty has to be actually foreseeable and the thin skull rule does not apply.
        
        Current position is in McLoughlin v O'Brian (1983) Deals with the idea of the immediate aftermath and proximity to primary victim. This was clarified in Alcock.
        Alcock: 4 stage test.
        1) harm was reasonably forseeable 2)close tie of love to primary victim 3) proximity in time and space 4)witnessed the scene with unaided senses.
        
        The shock must come from one shocking event that involves the sudden appreciation by sight and sound of a horrifying event which violently agitates the mind - Lord Ackner.
        Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters (2002) a series of health related negligent events were considered as one event.
        
        Possible to claim shock from damage to property. Attica v British Gas (1988)
        
        Duty has to be reasonably foreseeable and the thin skull rule applies
      - Secondary
        Hambrook v Stokes (2004) psychiatric harm caused by wondering whether her children were harmed by the lorry.
        
        Duty has to be actually foreseeable and the thin skull rule does not apply.
        
        Current position is in McLoughlin v O'Brian (1983) Deals with the idea of the immediate aftermath and proximity to primary victim. This was clarified in Alcock.
    - Denied in Victoria Railway Comissioner v Coultas
    - The harm has to be a recognisable psychiatric disorder: Reilly v Meryside Regional AHA, the symptoms did not add to anything.
    - Rescuers:
      - A duty is owed to rescuers - generous to claimant to encourage altruistic behaviour.
      - Turning point in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1998) They were not able to claim as SVs or as rescuers. Narrow interpretation of Page v Smith, but alaso would be unfair for them to succeed where the victims failed.
        Page v Smith. Developing ME because of a minor car crash need not be actually foreseeable if you are the primary victim.
    - Bystanders
      - Alcock suggests children and/or explosions may constitute grounds for a claim. But MeFarlane v EE Caledona (1994) was not allowed to claim.
  - What type of victim?
    - Primary
      - Dulieu v White (1901) The first case where nervous shock was allowed. It can be granted for when a victim suffers psychiatricly in face of physical risk, when the psychiatric harm was due to physical harm and when psychiatric harm results from seeing or hearing an event.
      - Bourhill v Young (1943) first distinction.
      - Duty has to be reasonably foreseeable and the thin skull rule applies
  - Special People
    - Police
      - Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)
        No duty of care to any individual citizen.
      - Millaney v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire (1985)
        There was a duty of care to informants who would be made vulnerable by being identifiable.
      - No duty in investigation part of their case.
        Michael v Chief Constable of south Wales Police (2015)
        This and Hill both explicitly reject the intervener's liabilty principle that would seek to hold the police liable to protect someone they know to be threatened.
      - Rigby v CC of Northamptonshire (1985) The police negligently started a fire and were liable.
      - A claimant might claim under human rights like is Osman v Uk for a breach of article 6.
    - Ambulance
      - Kent v Griffith...duty of care exists. Can be made liable.
    - Doctors
    - Solicitors
      - Hall v Simons (2000) revoked advocates immunity.
      - Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchelll (1980) made barristers liable for negligent advice.
      - Original immunity contained in Rondel v Worsley (1969)
    - Local Authorities
      - Mitchell v Glasgow City Council (2009) The local council were not liable for an assault by a tenant on another, even when it was foreseeable.
      - Bradford-Smart v West sussex CC (2002) teachers should prevent bullying that takes place in school.
      - Keavn-Price v Kent CC (2003) schools should curb behaviour that leads to serious injury.
      - phelps v Hillingdon LBC (2001) Dyslexia.
    - Smith v MOD armed forces; Jones v Kaney expert witnesses.
    - Fire Brigade
      - DoC hard to establish as there is a lack of proximity and policy reasons interfere.
      - Capital Counties plc v Hamshire CC (1997) extent of their immunity
  - Donoghue v Stevenson - neighbour principle
    - Anns v Merton imposed a policy consideration, but this was disgarded.
    - Caparo industries v Dickman 3-part test.
      - Reasonable foresight of harm.
        Smedley v Breed
        
        Kent v Griffith ambulances are liable because they can foresee the harm that might be caused.
        
        Haley v London Electricity Board (1965) Reasonably foreseeable that a blind person might trip over the hammer.
      - sufficient Proximity in time, space and relationship
        Bourhill v Young
        
        Mcloughlin v O'Brian
        
        Degree of proximity betwen betting company and defendant in Calvert v William Hill (2008)
      - Fair, just and reasonable to impose liability
        Hill v CC of West Yorkshire
        
        Reeves v MPC
        
        Orange v CC West Yorkshire
        
        Prisoners:Vellino v CC Greater Manchester
        
        XA v YA (2010)
      - Loss due to negligence of an audiitor.
    - Reasonable Forsesight + degree of proximity
  - Negligent Misstatement
    - A person can claim for personal injury or damage to property, but damages for economic loss are only for negligent misstatement, not negligent act.
    - Candler v crane Christmas and Co (1951) an accountant is only liable for claims by 3rd parties if they knew that party would rely on them,
    - Hendley Bryne v Heller and Partners (1964) relied on the dissented judgement in Candler.
      - Reliance by claimant on defendant's knowledge
        Recovery of damages when there is no relaince.
        White v Jpnes (1995) followed Ross v Caunters (1980) which allowed a claim for economic loss from negligent actl
        In White...The two daughters were supposed to be promised money in their father's will, but the solicitor negligently failed to do this. The daughters won their claim despite not having relied on the solicitors accounts.
        
        Intended beneficiaries. Gibbons v Nelsons (2000).... For a solicitor to be liable to dissapointed beneficiaries, he had to have been aware of the benefit and type of person it was intended for.
        Gorham v British Telecommunications plc (2000) Insurance and sill beneficiaries are the same.
      - reasonable knowledge of the defendant, of this reliance.
      - Reasonable for the claimant to rely.
        Less likely if both parties are experts in the field.
        
        More likely if there is a contractual relationship
        Henderson v Merrett Syndicates (1994) The contractual relationship between the parties made the duty of care more likely, moreover there was an implied assumption of responsibility to give advice.
        
        C needs to have relied on the advice
        JEB Fastners v Marks Bloom and Co (1983)
        
        JEB Fastners v Marks Bloom and Co (1983)
        
        Voluntary assumption of responsibility
        Henderson v Merrett Syndicates (1994) The contractual relationship between the parties made the duty of care more likely, moreover there was an implied assumption of responsibility to give advice.
        
        Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Lennon (2004)
        
        Patchett v swimming Pool and Allied Trade association (2009) A website counts as giving advice.
      - Clarified by Caparo
    - A need for a special relationship.
      - Person giving advice was in the business of giving advice- often to be a business/ professional relationship.
        Mutual Life assurance v Evatt (1971) Then confirmed in Howard Marine and Dredging.
        Chaidrey v Prabhakar (1988) was an exception to the rule that social relationships cannot be special ones.
      - Reliance by claimant on defendant's knowledge
        Recovery of damages when there is no relaince.
        White v Jpnes (1995) followed Ross v Caunters (1980) which allowed a claim for economic loss from negligent actl
        In White...The two daughters were supposed to be promised money in their father's will, but the solicitor negligently failed to do this. The daughters won their claim despite not having relied on the solicitors accounts.
        
        Intended beneficiaries. Gibbons v Nelsons (2000).... For a solicitor to be liable to dissapointed beneficiaries, he had to have been aware of the benefit and type of person it was intended for.
        Gorham v British Telecommunications plc (2000) Insurance and sill beneficiaries are the same.
      - reasonable knowledge of the defendant, of this reliance.
      - Reasonable for the claimant to rely.
        Less likely if both parties are experts in the field.
        
        More likely if there is a contractual relationship
        
        C needs to have relied on the advice
        
        Voluntary assumption of responsibility
        Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Lennon (2004)
        
        Patchett v swimming Pool and Allied Trade association (2009) A website counts as giving advice.
    - Attidudes adjusted throughout the 80s
      - Vianna v Edwin Evans (1982)... new relationships recognised - surveyor and house buyer.
        And in Harris v wye Forest DC (1989); smith v Eric S Bush; Eley v Chasemore (1989) adjusts the liability.
    - Recent allowance of claims for negligent provision of services have not opened the floodgates as expected.
- Breach of duty
  - Standard of general reasonableness.
    - Who is the reasonable man? The guy who rides the Clapham omnibus, who takes the magazines home and in the evening pushes the lawnmower in his shirt sleeves.
      - Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933)
      - Glasgow Corporation v Mur (1943) Free from over apprehension or over confidence.
    - Not impossible to reach. Cole v Davis-Gilbert (2007) no expectation to be aware of a dangerous hole. Harris v Perry (2008) not expected to constantly supervise child.
    - Consider: likelihood of damage, likely severity, cost of precautions, intrinsic negligence of the activity, social benefits of the activity.
    - Standard of care - 6 factors.
      - Foreseeability of risk. In reasonable contemplation was the risk likely to occur?
        Walker v Northumberland County Council (1995)
      - Magnitude of risk. To do with taking risk increasing factors into account. Like blindness in Haley v London Electricity Board (1965)
      - Extent of possible harm - thin skull rule. Page v Smith
      - Social usefulness.
        Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)
      - Practical precautions taken to minimise risk.
        Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) reasonable precautions were taken to redice slipperiness. so duty was discharged.
      - Common practice. Brown v Rolls Royce (1960)
    - Children and negligence.
      - Held to a standard of reasonable behaviour for their age.
        McHale v Watson (1966) 12 yo could not be reasonably expected to know the risks of throwing a dart.
        
        Mullins v Richards (1998) a 15yo was not seen to be liable for injuries caused by play fighting with rulers.
    - Subjective considerations.
      - Children
        Mchale v Watson (1966) reasonable of a child of his age and intelligence. This 12 yo was not seen to be liable for throwing the dart.
        
        Mullins v Richard (1998) a 15yo not liable for fighting with rulers.
        
        Orchard v Lee (2009) role of teacher.
        Children engaged in play in appropriate play area within accepted norms will not incite liability.
      - Motorists
        No distinction made between experienced and non - experienced. - Nettleship v Weston
      - Medical experts
        Test established in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) a doctor is not negligent if he is acting within a practice that is generally accepted by a group of responsible medics in the related field.
        In De Freitas v O'Brien (1995) 11 of 1000 doctors agreed and this was enough to remove liability.
        
        Criticised for allowing medics to band together and create own duty of care.
        
        Used in relation to...
        Consent to treatment - Hatcher v Black (1954) most docotrs don't siclose all minor risks.
        Sidaway v Governers of the Bethlem Hospital and Maudsley Hospital (1985)
        
        examination and diagnosis - Maynard v West Midland Regional Health Authority (1985) They didn't want to wait for results because of the risk of cancer. Medical body agreed.
        If diagnosis is genuinely wrong there is still liability - Ryan v EAst London and City HA (2001)
        
        Choice of treatment - Whitehouse v Jordan - use of forcepts.
        
        Level of expertise in the doctor. Wilsher v Essex AHA (1988) junior doctors are held to the same standard of care and both under Bolam.
        Knight v Home Office (1990) applied differently because the prison hospital was no needed to have the same standard as an ordinary hospital.
        
        Other professionals like auctioneers and local authorities. Luxmore May v Messenger May and Baverstock (1990) and Adams v Rhynbey Valley DC (2000)
      - Those who are ill are held to the standard of a reasonable person with the same illness. Robert v Ramsbottem (1980)
      - Sportspersons are held to a higher standard if they are professional.
        Pitcher v Huddersfield Town (2001)
        
        Conden v Basi (1985)
      - Specialists are held to the standard of a competent person of that skill.
        No liability for DIY - Wells v Cooper (1958)
- Causation
  - Did the breach of duty cause the damage.
    - Causation in fact or law.
    - 'But for' test: negligence must have materially contributed to the harm.
      - Cork v Kirby Maclean Ltd (1952) if the damage would not have occured but for the fault then there is causation.
        Had there been railings, the guy would not have died when he had an epileptic fit, so therefore there was causation.
      - Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1968) The C's husband would have died even if he had not been negligently dismissed.
      - This test is not adequate where there are multiple causes of harm.
        Robinson v Post Office (1974) the d was liable for causing the leg injury, but the doctor was not liable for failing to test for allergies before treating the injury.
        
        Fitzgerald v Lane (1989) two cars drive into the c simultaneously.
        
        Chester v Afshar (2004) it was too hard to decide what would have happened had there been informed consent.
        
        Further difficulties:
        1. Loss of chance.
        medical negligence. The percentage chance of getting well is reduced by an act or omission of a doctor. Did negligence cause the patient to not be cured?
        Hotson v East Berkshire AHA (1987) it was decided there should not be a % compensation relative to % loss. There is either causation, or there is not. On the balance of probabilities.
        
        Gregg v Scott confirmed that you cannot claim for loss of chance of a more favourable outcome.
        
        2. Several concurrent cases.
        A modified test: was there a material increase of harm?
        In Wilsher v Essex Health Authority, the c had to prove a material causation, not just increased risk, like under McGhee.
        
        Bonnington Castings Ltd v Warlaw (1956) the claimant had to prove a material contribution, not a sole factor.
        
        McGhee v NCB and Sienkiewicz v Freef (2011) dealt with the definition of material contribution.
        
        3. Consecutive causes
        If 2 individual events cause the same damage, the first should be taken as the cause.
        Baker v Willoughby (1970) the defendant was liable for the 1st and 2nd person's negligence.
        
        In Jobling v Associated Dairies (1981) this precedent was rejected as the second injury occurred from natural causes.
        
        4. Multiple tortfeasors. E.G. Slowly developing, workplace related diseases.
        In Holtby v Brighton and Cowan (2000) The causation was assessed using material contribution. The judge only compensated him for the years he worked for the defendant. McGhee was not applied. This resulted in him being under-compensated.
        Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (2002) by applying McGhee where an exact d could not be proven on the balance of probabilities.
        Barker v Corpus UK (2004) changed the compensation to several liability meaining that the various ds were liable proportionately. Due to pressure groups, the labour government passed section 3 (1) to the compensations act 2006 to revert back to Fairchild in order that claimants would not lose out due to insolvency.
        
        Novus actus intervenieus is a defence that claims that an intervening act by c or 3rd party caused the breach.
        Contributory negligence or interuption of the chain of causation.
        Mckew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (1969) the c was injured due to d , but went on to negligently do activity that caused further injury. D was not responsible for these.
        
        Weland v Cyril Lord Carpets (1969) The collar the woman had to wear due to damage done by d meant she couldn't adjust glasses. She therefore fell down the stairs. D was liable for these injuries.
        
        Consecutive negligence all rests on the first guy, except when second D causes NAI. Proved by the act being was voluntary and in independant of the breach. This breaks chain and first guy is only liable up to point of second act.
        Rouse v Squares (1973)
  - Remoteness
    - Re Polemis (1921) test/ direct consequence test.
      - A stevendore dropped a plank of wood, causing a spark that lit leaded gas in the hold. explosion was a direct consequence of dropping wood. Not too remote.
    - Wagon Mound (No1) (1961)
      - Introduced reasonable foreseeability.
        Applied in Jolley v Sutton (1961)
        
        Doughty v Turner Manufacturing (1964)
        
        Smith v Leech Brain & CO (1962) thin skull rule applies.

Get Revising

Tortious Liability for Negligence

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: