Negligence Causation of Damage
87 Questions
3 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

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'?

    <p>'Damage' had policy grounds for refusal</p> Signup and view all the answers

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

    <p>Pain and suffering</p> Signup and view all the answers

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

    <p>Compensate the victim for a loss</p> 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?

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

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

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

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

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

    What is the difference between factual causation and legal causation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    <p>The 'material contribution to the risk' test</p> Signup and view all the answers

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

    <p>The court applied the 'but for' test and denied the claimant's recovery</p> 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?

    <p>The court applied the 'material contribution to the risk' test and held that each employer was jointly liable</p> 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?

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

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

    <p>Successive causes</p> Signup and view all the answers

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

    <p>Concurrent causes</p> 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    <p>False</p> 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.

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

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

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

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

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

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

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

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

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

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

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

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

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

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

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

    <p>True</p> 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

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

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

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

    <p>False</p> 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.

    <p>True</p> 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.

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

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

    <p>False</p> 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.

    Quiz Team

    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.

    More Like This

    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Open
    Browser
    Browser