Barnett v Chelsea Hospital [1969] Where a patient with an incurable disease was sent away from a hospital and died. He then could not sue the Doctor for not treating him.
1 of 14
But For Test Example 2
McWilliams [1962] Where a man who never used a harness before when issued with one could not sue his employers for not providing him with one when he fell from a scaffold.
2 of 14
Proving Causation Method 1
1. "All or Nothing" whereby if C can prove it is 51% likely to be D's fault he gets full damages. - Wilsher v Essex HA [1988]
3 of 14
Proving Causation Method 2
2. "Vindication of Rights" where if D was wrong and caused harm, even if not his fault he will still be liable - Informed consent case where an operation caused harm even though not done negligently - Chester v Ashfar [2004]
4 of 14
Proving Causation Method 3
3. "Material Increase in Risk/Material Contribution to harm"- McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]
5 of 14
Multiple Cause Cases
Indeterminate Cause: D1 + D2 held "jointly and severalty liable" : US Case of Summers v Tice [1948] - Cumulative Cause: D1 + D2 cause equal amounts of damage and are held "J and S liable". Fitzgerald v Lane [1989]
6 of 14
Consecutive Cases:
D1 still liable if D2 only causes same type of damage - Performance Cars v Abraham [1962] - D1 not liable if his harm is overtaken by the further damage of D2 - Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009]
7 of 14
How to Understand Causation
Factual Causation is "understood as the man on the street" would understand it. Lord Wright in Yorkshire Dale Steamship
8 of 14
Novus Actus Interveniens
Has the action of the second defendant broken the chain of causation>
9 of 14
NAI - TP Actions
Medical care overrides a grave lack of skill and care - Hogan v Bentick Ltd [1949] & Instinctive intervention is not NAI - Scott v Shepard [1773] "firework thrower" & Negligent Intervention must be powerful enough to override - Knightly [1951]
10 of 14
NAI Type 2 - IA's of the C - if C acts unreasonable, it will break the chain.
see the stair case: Mckew v Holland Ltd [1969] and Wieland v Cyril Lord [1969] & Wieland could still claim because she had asked for assitance and so was not acting unreasonably
11 of 14
Remoteness of Damage
Could the Defendant have reasonably foreseen the damage? - The Wagon Mound No 1. [1965]
12 of 14
Foresee-ability
Only have to foresee the type of damage, not the way it is caused or its extent - Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]
13 of 14
Eggshell Skull Rule
You have to take the victim as you found them, even if an underlying causes amplifies the damage, you are liable for all the consequences - Smith v Leech Brain [1962]
14 of 14
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
But For Test Example 2
Back
McWilliams [1962] Where a man who never used a harness before when issued with one could not sue his employers for not providing him with one when he fell from a scaffold.
Comments
No comments have yet been made