Law Case Analysis: Jolly v Sutton & Others
45 Questions
12 Views

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

According to the second approach derived from The Wagon Mound, how are defendants held liable?

  • For foreseeable kinds of harm, irrespective of the precise manner in which it is caused (correct)
  • Only for foreseeable kinds of harm that occur in a specific manner
  • For all kinds of harm, regardless of foreseeability
  • Only for direct consequences of their actions

    • In the case of Jolly v Sutton, the boys suffered an injury while working on a boat that was left on the council's land.

    True

    What type of interpretation would the claimant in a case likely argue for regarding the kind of harm?

    A broad interpretation

    The case of Jolly v Sutton involved a boat that was left to ______ on land owned by the London Borough of Sutton.

    <p>rot</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the parties in Jolly v Sutton with their likely arguments about the kind of harm:

    <p>Claimant = Broad interpretation of harm Defendant = Narrow interpretation of harm</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What was the conclusion of the House of Lords in Barker v Corus regarding defendants' liability?

    <p>Defendants should only pay a percentage based on the risk they increased.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The Compensation Act 2006 reversed the decision made in Barker v Corus for mesothelioma cases.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the case of Hotson v East Berkshire, what was the boy's chance of recovery when he first went to the hospital?

    <p>25 percent</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The Compensation Act 2006 was a reaction to the judgments in the case of ______.

    <p>Barker v Corus</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the cases with their relevant issues or concepts:

    <p>Barker v Corus = Liability based on increased risk Hotson v East Berkshire = Loss of a chance of recovery Wilsher v Essex = Proximate cause of injury Compensation Act 2006 = Restoration of pre-Barker legal position</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Hotson v East Berkshire was based on what event that caused the boy's disability?

    <p>A fall from a tree</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal's decision in the Hotson case.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What percentage chance of recovery did the boy lose due to the hospital's misdiagnosis in Hotson v East Berkshire?

    <p>25 percent</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What term is used to describe an event that breaks the chain of causation?

    <p>Novus actus interveniens</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A claimant's own behavior will always break the chain of causation.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the case where a driver negligently jackknifes his lorry and causes an accident, is he considered the cause of any resulting deaths?

    <p>Yes</p> Signup and view all the answers

    An instinctive natural response will NOT break the chain of __________.

    <p>causation</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What presumption is made about the actions of a third party in relation to the chain of causation?

    <p>They do not break the chain if foreseeable.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the following scenarios with their legal implications:

    <p>Instinctive response = Does not break the chain Negligent third party action = Does not break chain if foreseeable Deliberate third party action = Does not break chain if foreseeable Claimant's unreasonable behavior = Breaks the chain</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The court has an easy time determining if an act breaks the chain of causation.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In a situation where a car crashes in a tunnel, who is responsible if the police officer forgets to stop drivers from entering?

    <p>The police officer</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What duty did D owe to C?

    <p>Duty to ensure employees wore proper safety gear</p> Signup and view all the answers

    D can be held liable for C's injury regardless of C's actions.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What significant intervening event might absolve D from liability?

    <p>A freak storm</p> Signup and view all the answers

    C was harmed due to refusing to wear a hard hat, which D provided. This relates to the '________' test.

    <p>but for</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the actions of C with their consequences:

    <p>Refusal to wear a hard hat = Increased risk of injury Suicide = Intervening act breaking causation Not following safety instructions = Contributing factor to harm The freak storm = Unforeseeable event resulting in harm</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of the following is a key argument for D's breach of duty?

    <p>D gave hard hats and instructed proper usage</p> Signup and view all the answers

    C's suicide is considered a foreseeable type of harm in this case.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    How could D argue that C's actions contributed to the injury?

    <p>By showing that C refused to wear the provided hard hat.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the main factor that distinguishes Monty from Freddie in terms of contributory negligence?

    <p>The age of the individual</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Freddie, being 8 years old, can be judged against the reasonable adult standard for contributory negligence.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What type of defense is contributory negligence considered?

    <p>partial defense</p> Signup and view all the answers

    If a defendant successfully establishes contributory negligence, they will pay the claimant ______ compensation.

    <p>less</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of the following is NOT a complete defense?

    <p>Contributory negligence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Claire's injuries from banging her head were caused solely by her not wearing a seatbelt, thus contributing to the accident.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What must be established to determine if a child has been careless in a negligence claim?

    <p>the standard of the average child of that age</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the following terms with their definitions:

    <p>Consent = A complete defense that eliminates liability Illegality = A defense applicable when the claimant's conduct is unlawful Disclaimers = A notice that limits liability Contributory Negligence = A partial defense that reduces compensation</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the first scenario involving Claire, what injury does she suffer due to not wearing a seatbelt?

    <p>A head injury from hitting the windscreen</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the second scenario, Patrick has a defence of contributory negligence.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What action does Ricky take that leads to his injury?

    <p>He leaps in front of the car to rescue a child.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Claire's failure to wear a seatbelt is considered __________ in the first scenario.

    <p>careless</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the scenarios with the outcome regarding contributory negligence:

    <p>Claire not wearing a seatbelt and hitting her head = Contributory negligence applies Claire not wearing a seatbelt and breaking her leg = No contributory negligence Ricky rescuing a child and getting injured = No contributory negligence Shane's negligence causing a car to roll = Contributory negligence applies</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the primary reason Ricky should not have his compensation reduced?

    <p>He was trying to save a child from being hit.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Shane can argue contributory negligence because Ricky acted voluntarily.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the case of Claire breaking her leg, this injury would likely have occurred even if she had been __________.

    <p>wearing her seatbelt</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Study Notes

    Causation

    • The courts apply a common-sense approach to causation, aiming to satisfy the "man on the street" rather than rigorous analysis.
    • Claimants need to satisfy the judge on three points:
      • The claimant wouldn't have been harmed if the defendant hadn't been negligent.
      • There wasn't a significant intervening event between the defendant's breach and the claimant's harm.
      • The type of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable.
    • The "but for" test is used: "But for the defendant's actions, would the claimant have suffered harm?"
    • Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital: A medical negligence case demonstrating that the defendant's actions weren't the cause of the claimant's harm. The claimant had already consumed arsenic.
    • McWilliams v Sir William Arrol: Case where the defendant argued the claimant's own actions (e.g., failure to wear a harness) caused the harm.

    Industrial Disease

    • In situations of industrial disease, it can be difficult to prove exactly what part the defendant's breach played in the claimant's injury.
    • Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw: The claimant suffered from pneumoconiosis; the court ruled that the defendant's breach made a significant contribution, even though the exact causation couldn't be determined.
    • McGhee v National Coal Board: The claimant suffered dermatitis due to dust exposure at work; the defendant's failure to provide showers increased the risk significantly, and so this was sufficient for the claim to succeed.

    Mesothelioma Cases

    • Mesothelioma cases are complex, often involving multiple employers' exposure to asbestos.
    • Fairchild: The House of Lords established that even if one couldn't prove which employer alone caused the cancer (Mesothelioma), the fact that each employer increased the risk was sufficient for all to be held liable.
    • The case emphasizes that cumulative exposure to multiple employers can still result in liability.

    Medical Negligence

    • Hotson v East Berkshire: The House of Lords ruled that a claimant could not succeed in their claim if their injuries had a 25% chance of occurring regardless of the negligence. It considered that the claimant had to demonstrate that the breach 'more likely than not' caused the injury.

    Breaking the Chain

    • Subsequent events can break the chain of causation if they are unforeseeable.
    • Knightly v Johns: Police actions breaking the chain; the original driver was not responsible.
    • Rouse v Squires: A subsequent event did not break the chain, as the subsequent event was foreseeable.
    • Unreasonable actions by the claimant can sometimes be considered as breaking the chain or the link in the chain e.g McKew v Holland & Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd.

    Burden and Standard of Proof

    • The claimant generally carries the burden of proving negligence.
    • The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).
    • Critical evidence sources include eyewitness testimony, expert witness testimony, and accident records.

    Studying That Suits You

    Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

    Quiz Team

    Related Documents

    Tort Law Causation and Defences PDF

    Description

    Explore important legal concepts and case law in this quiz focused on Jolly v Sutton, Barker v Corus, and Hotson v East Berkshire. Test your understanding of defendants' liability, claimant arguments, and legislative responses in tort law. Perfect for law students and enthusiasts alike!

    More Like This

    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Open
    Browser
    Browser