Jobling v Associated Dairies: Negligence Causation of Damage Quiz and Flashcards

Podcast Beta

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is the link between the breach of duty of care and the actual injury or loss?

Dependent on how a specific action has caused a specific damage (correct)

Dependent on the type of conduct being an omission

Dependent on the financial losses incurred

Dependent on the pain and suffering experienced

Which of the following is part of 'Damages' in the context of law?

Loss of business profits (correct)

Loss of amenities

Loss of enjoyment

Cost of medical treatment

In McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, what damages were claimed for?

Loss of enjoyment

Pain and suffering associated with birth and pregnancy (correct)

Financial losses

Costs of bringing up the child

According to Lords Steyn and Millett, why was it refused to recognize a healthy child as 'damage'?

'Damage' had policy grounds for refusal Signup and view all the answers

Which type of losses are harder to quantify according to the text?

Pain and suffering Signup and view all the answers

'Damages' awarded in law are meant to compensate which of the following?

Compensate the victim for a loss Signup and view all the answers

What was the basis for the claim against the hospital in the Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee case?

The hospital was negligent in diagnosing the night-watchman's condition. Signup and view all the answers

What is the purpose of the 'but for' test in determining factual causation?

To assess whether the defendant's act or omission actually caused the damage. Signup and view all the answers

What are the advantages of the 'but for' test in determining factual causation?

It is relatively easy to apply and understand, and it accords with a sense of justice. Signup and view all the answers

What is the difference between factual causation and legal causation?

Factual causation determines whether the defendant's act or omission caused the damage, while legal causation determines if the damage suffered is too remote or unforeseeable. Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome of the Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee case?

The hospital was found not liable because the night-watchman would have died even if the hospital had made the correct diagnosis. Signup and view all the answers

What is the main purpose of the discussion on factual causation and legal causation in the text?

To explain the differences between factual and legal causation and how they are determined. Signup and view all the answers

What is the general rule for establishing causation in negligence cases?

The 'but for' test Signup and view all the answers

In the case of McGhee v National Coal Board, what test was applied to establish causation?

The 'material contribution to the risk' test Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority, what was the court's ruling regarding causation?

The court applied the 'but for' test and denied the claimant's recovery Signup and view all the answers

What was the court's ruling in the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd regarding causation in mesothelioma cases?

The court applied the 'material contribution to the risk' test and held that each employer was jointly liable Signup and view all the answers

What was the court's ruling in the case of Barker v Corus UK Ltd regarding liability in mesothelioma cases?

The court held that liability was several and not joint for each employer's proportion of contribution to the risk Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Baker v Willoughby, what type of causation issue was involved?

Successive causes Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Fitzgerald v Lane, what type of causation issue was involved?

Concurrent causes Signup and view all the answers

What was the court's ruling in the case of Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority regarding the 'loss of chance' doctrine?

The court rejected the 'loss of chance' doctrine as a matter of public policy Signup and view all the answers

What did the Compensation Act 2006, s.3 codify regarding liability in mesothelioma cases caused by asbestos exposure?

It codified joint and several liability for each employer's contribution to the risk Signup and view all the answers

In tort law, damages are awarded to punish the defendant for their wrongdoing.

False Signup and view all the answers

A breach of duty is sufficient to establish causation in negligence cases.

False Signup and view all the answers

Non-pecuniary losses, such as pain and suffering, are easier to quantify than pecuniary losses.

False Signup and view all the answers

In McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, damages were claimed for the costs of raising a healthy child born after a negligent vasectomy.

False Signup and view all the answers

According to Lords Steyn and Millett, policy grounds justified recognizing a healthy child as 'damage'.

False Signup and view all the answers

The law of tort deals with omissions only under specific circumstances.

True Signup and view all the answers

The 'but for' test is used to determine factual causation, which examines the historical connection between the defendant's negligence and the injury suffered by the claimant.

True Signup and view all the answers

In the Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee case, the court found that there was no factual causation because the watchmen would have died even if the doctors had made the correct diagnosis.

True Signup and view all the answers

The 'but for' test is always conclusive in determining factual causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

Legal causation examines whether the damage suffered by the claimant is too remote or far removed from the defendant's negligence to be considered foreseeable.

True Signup and view all the answers

In negligence cases, damages are awarded to compensate the claimant for any losses or injuries suffered, regardless of whether they were caused by the defendant's negligence.

False Signup and view all the answers

The discussion on factual causation and legal causation in the text is aimed at understanding the link between the breach of duty of care and the actual injury or loss suffered by the claimant.

True Signup and view all the answers

The 'material contribution to risk' test was established in the case of McGhee v National Coal Board to address situations where the 'but for' test did not apply.

True Signup and view all the answers

The case of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority overruled the 'material contribution to risk' test established in McGhee v National Coal Board.

True Signup and view all the answers

In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd, the court reaffirmed the 'material contribution to risk' test and applied it to mesothelioma cases involving multiple employers.

True Signup and view all the answers

The case of Barker v Corus UK Ltd established that liability in mesothelioma cases should be joint and several, rather than proportional.

False Signup and view all the answers

The Compensation Act 2006, s.3 codified joint and several liability for mesothelioma cases caused by asbestos exposure, overruling the decision in Barker v Corus UK Ltd.

True Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Baker v Willoughby, the issue involved successive causes, where one tort was followed by another tort.

True Signup and view all the answers

The case of Jobling v Associated Dairies involved a non-tortious subsequent condition contributing to the claimant's injury.

True Signup and view all the answers

The case of Fitzgerald v Lane involved the issue of concurrent causes, where multiple causes contributed to the claimant's injury simultaneously.

True Signup and view all the answers

The 'loss of chance' doctrine, as discussed in Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority, allows claimants to recover damages for the loss of an opportunity to avoid injury caused by the original negligent act.

True Signup and view all the answers

The 'but for' test is the only test used to establish causation in negligence cases, and the courts have never modified or deviated from this test.

False Signup and view all the answers

Causation in negligence cases is not about the link between the breach of duty of care and the actual injury or loss suffered by the claimant.

False Signup and view all the answers

Non-pecuniary losses, such as loss of business profits, are easier to quantify than pecuniary losses according to the text.

False Signup and view all the answers

In the case of McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, damages were claimed for the costs of raising a healthy child born after a negligent vasectomy.

False Signup and view all the answers

According to Lords Steyn and Millett, policy grounds justified recognizing a healthy child as 'damage.'

False Signup and view all the answers

In Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital, a disabled child was legally recognized as 'damages.'

True Signup and view all the answers

Damages in law are awarded to punish the defendant for their wrongdoing.

False Signup and view all the answers

The 'but for' test is always conclusive in determining factual causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

In the Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee case, the court found that there was factual causation.

False Signup and view all the answers

The 'material contribution to risk' test was established in McGhee v National Coal Board to address situations where the 'but for' test did not apply.

True Signup and view all the answers

Legal causation examines whether the damage suffered by the claimant is too remote or far removed from the defendant's negligence to be considered foreseeable.

True Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Jobling v Associated Dairies, the issue involved a non-tortious subsequent condition contributing to the claimant's injury.

True Signup and view all the answers

In McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, damages were claimed for the costs of raising an unhealthy child born after a negligent vasectomy.

False Signup and view all the answers

The 'but for' test is the only test used to establish causation in negligence cases, and the courts have never modified or deviated from this test.

False Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Barker v Corus UK Ltd, the court departed from the decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and held that liability in mesothelioma cases should be several and not joint for the proportion of contribution to risk.

True Signup and view all the answers

The Compensation Act 2006, s.3 overruled the decision in Barker v Corus UK Ltd and codified joint and several liability in relation to mesothelioma contracted through asbestos exposure.

True Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Fitzgerald v Lane, the issue involved concurrent causes, where multiple causes contributed to the claimant's injury simultaneously.

True Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority, the House of Lords held that the claimant did not need to prove that 'but for' the defendant's negligence, the injury would not have occurred.

False Signup and view all the answers

The 'loss of chance' doctrine, as discussed in Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority, allows claimants to recover damages for the loss of an opportunity to avoid injury caused by the original negligent act.

False Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Baker v Willoughby, the issue involved successive causes, where one tort was followed by another tort.

True Signup and view all the answers

Legal causation examines the historical connection between the defendant's negligence and the injury suffered by the claimant.

False Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd, the court applied the 'material contribution to risk' test and held that each employer was jointly liable for the claimant's mesothelioma.

True Signup and view all the answers

The case of Jobling v Associated Dairies involved a non-tortious subsequent condition contributing to the claimant's injury.

True Signup and view all the answers

The 'but for' test is the only test used to establish causation in negligence cases, and the courts have never modified or deviated from this test.

False Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd, the court reaffirmed the 'material contribution to risk' test and applied it to mesothelioma cases involving multiple employers.

True Signup and view all the answers

Damages in law are awarded to punish the defendant for their wrongdoing.

False Signup and view all the answers

In Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital, a disabled child was legally recognized as 'damages.'

True Signup and view all the answers

The 'loss of chance' doctrine, as discussed in Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority, allows claimants to recover damages for the loss of an opportunity to avoid injury caused by the original negligent act.

True Signup and view all the answers

Legal causation examines the historical connection between the defendant's negligence and the injury suffered by the claimant.

False Signup and view all the answers

The law of tort does not deal with omissions unless of the specific circumstances.

True Signup and view all the answers

Damages in law are awarded to punish the defendant for their wrongdoing.

False Signup and view all the answers

Non-pecuniary losses, such as pain and suffering, are easier to quantify than pecuniary losses.

False Signup and view all the answers

In McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, damages were claimed for the costs of raising a healthy child born after a negligent vasectomy.

False Signup and view all the answers

The 'but for' test is the only test used to establish causation in negligence cases, and the courts have never modified or deviated from this test.

False Signup and view all the answers

In Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital, a disabled child was legally recognized as 'damages'.

True Signup and view all the answers

The 'but for' test is the only test used to establish causation in negligence cases, and the courts have never modified or deviated from this test.

False Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority, the court held that in order to recover, the claimant had to prove that 'but for' the defendant's negligence, the injury would not have occurred.

True Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd, the court applied the 'material contribution to risk' test and held that each employer was jointly liable for the claimant's mesothelioma.

True Signup and view all the answers

The 'loss of chance' doctrine, as discussed in Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority, allows claimants to recover damages for the loss of an opportunity to avoid injury caused by the original negligent act.

True Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Baker v Willoughby, the issue involved concurrent causes, where multiple causes contributed to the claimant's injury simultaneously.

False Signup and view all the answers

The Compensation Act 2006, s.3 overruled the decision in Barker v Corus UK Ltd and codified joint and several liability in relation to mesothelioma contracted through asbestos exposure.

True Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Fitzgerald v Lane, the issue involved successive causes, where one tort was followed by another tort.

False Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Barker v Corus UK Ltd, the court departed from the decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and held that liability in mesothelioma cases should be several and not joint for the proportion of contribution to risk.

True Signup and view all the answers

Damages in law are awarded to compensate the claimant for any losses or injuries suffered, regardless of whether they were caused by the defendant's negligence.

False Signup and view all the answers

Legal causation examines the historical connection between the defendant's negligence and the injury suffered by the claimant.

False Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Causation of Damage: Negligence

What is Causation?

Link between the breach of the duty of care and the actual injury or loss (damage)
Breach must have caused the damage
Responsibility for a breach of duty is dependent on how a specific action, event or state of affairs has caused a specific damage

Damage and Damages

Damage: Tort, injury, loss, harm
Damages:
- Remedies
- Awards made to compensate a victim for a loss
- Made to restore victim to position prior to loss
- Awarded to compensate, not punish
- Awarded for personal injury, death or loss of property
- Awards for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses
  - Pecuniary losses: Financial losses, loss of business profits, cost of medical treatment
  - Non-pecuniary losses: Harder to quantify, loss of enjoyment, pain and suffering, how to put this into financial terms is difficult

Factual Causation

Factual inquiry to determine whether the defendant is responsible for the injury to the claimant
Historical connection between defendant’s negligence and injury
Breach of duty must be the factual cause of damage
Decided by the “but for test” (but for the defendant’s negligence, would injury have occurred)

The But For Test

Useful up to a point
Relatively easy to apply and to understand
Simple and intuitive
Accords to a sense of justice whereby only those who are likely to have caused harm will be liable to pay damages
Not always conclusive

Special Circumstances

Multiple causes: Produces misleading answers when there is more than one cause of the damage
Successive causes: McGhee v National Coal Board 1 WLR 1
Concurrent causes: Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority 2 WLR 557; AC 1074
Intervening events: Baker v Willoughby AC 467

Case Examples

McFarlane v Tayside Health Board 2 AC 59
Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital QB 266
Chester v Afshar 1 AC 134
McGhee v National Coal Board 1 WLR 1
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd 1 AC 32
Barker v Corus UK Ltd 2WLR 1027
Fitzgerald v Lane 1 AC 328
Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority AC 750
Gregg v Scott 2 AC 176### Causation
Causation is the link between the breach of the duty of care and the actual injury or loss (damage)
Breach must have caused the damage
Responsibility for a breach of duty is dependent on how a specific action, event, or state of affairs has caused a specific damage

Factual Causation

A factual inquiry to determine whether the defendant is responsible for the injury to the claimant
Historical connection between defendant's negligence and injury
Breach of duty must be the factual cause of damage
Decided by the "but for test" (but for the defendant's negligence, would the injury have occurred?)

The "But For" Test

Useful up to a point; relatively easy to apply and understand
Simple and intuitive
Accords to a sense of justice whereby only those who are likely to have caused harm will be liable to pay damages
Not always conclusive
Does not necessarily work in cases with multiple causes of damage
Normal rules of causation may be modified to respond to special circumstances

Multiple Causes

McGhee v National Coal Board 1 WLR 1: Dermatitis caused by exposure to brick dust; two sources of exposure, one source a result of employer's negligence
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority 2 WLR 557; AC 1074: Premature baby, given too much oxygen, developed a condition called RLF; exposure to excess oxygen one of five possible causes of RLF
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd 1 AC 32: Exposure to asbestos in course of employment; pleural mesothelioma; three sources of exposure; material contribution to the 'risk' of harm test
Barker v Corus UK Ltd 2 WLR 1027: Mesothelioma; departure from Fairchild; liability several and not joint for proportion of contribution to risk

Successive Causes

Baker v Willoughby AC 467: a tort and a further tort
Jobling v Associated Dairies 794: non-tortious subsequent condition

Concurrent Causes

Fitzgerald v Lane 1 AC 328: Loss of chance; loss of the opportunity to avoid the injury caused by the original negligent act

Loss of Chance

Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority AC 750: 75% chance the injury would have occurred because of the fall; could claimant recover for the loss of 25% chance of making a full recovery?
Gregg v Scott 2 AC 176: Not the right thing to do as a matter of public policy; held to an onerous standard

Studying That Suits You

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

Description

Explore the link between the breach of the duty of care and the actual injury or loss in the context of negligence. Understand how specific actions or omissions can lead to legal responsibility for damages in tort law.