If there is potentially more than one cause we need to go with the ‘most likely’ cause.
Fairchild V Glenhaven funeral services – developed asbestosis but more than one party could have been responsible the development of this. – No liability as there are potentially multiple cases.
Baker V chorus – Special circumstances and the ‘but for test’ was modified in the type of situation to ensure equal liability.
Intervening events can sometimes shift of change liability - Even if there is a breach of duty sometimes an intervening act can remove liability.
Smith v Littlewoods - construction company finished + locked up, vandals broke in and set fire which spread to next door - claimant (shop owner) lost case as neighbourhood was good and therefore not foreseeable
Corr V IBC vehicles (2006) – Man was at work, machinery fell on head, caused head injuries. Due to injuries defendant, because depressed, committed suicide - Intervening act was not considered to have broken the chain of causation and therefore defendant is liable.
Comments
No comments have yet been made