Podcast
Questions and Answers
What is the 'But For' test primarily concerned with in legal causation?
What is the 'But For' test primarily concerned with in legal causation?
In the case of Breslin v Corcoran, what did the court determine regarding the car owner's liability?
In the case of Breslin v Corcoran, what did the court determine regarding the car owner's liability?
Which of the following cases dealt with the concept of multiple sufficient causes?
Which of the following cases dealt with the concept of multiple sufficient causes?
What alternative approaches have been proposed to replace the 'But For' test in legal causation?
What alternative approaches have been proposed to replace the 'But For' test in legal causation?
Signup and view all the answers
In which case was it determined that there could be multiple sources of causation that increase risk?
In which case was it determined that there could be multiple sources of causation that increase risk?
Signup and view all the answers
What does the term 'Novus Actus Interveniens' refer to in tort law?
What does the term 'Novus Actus Interveniens' refer to in tort law?
Signup and view all the answers
How is foreseeability related to negligence in the context of liability?
How is foreseeability related to negligence in the context of liability?
Signup and view all the answers
Why might the 'But For' test be insufficient in certain legal cases?
Why might the 'But For' test be insufficient in certain legal cases?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the essential factor in determining liability according to the Wagon Mound No 1 decision?
What is the essential factor in determining liability according to the Wagon Mound No 1 decision?
Signup and view all the answers
In the case of Hughes v Lord Advocate, what did the House of Lords determine regarding a negligent defendant's liability?
In the case of Hughes v Lord Advocate, what did the House of Lords determine regarding a negligent defendant's liability?
Signup and view all the answers
What aspect of foreseeability did the judge address in Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd?
What aspect of foreseeability did the judge address in Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the principle behind the Egg Shell Skull Rule?
What is the principle behind the Egg Shell Skull Rule?
Signup and view all the answers
In the Burke v John Paul & Co case, what was the defendant's argument regarding foreseeability?
In the Burke v John Paul & Co case, what was the defendant's argument regarding foreseeability?
Signup and view all the answers
What factor determines remoteness of damage in negligence law?
What factor determines remoteness of damage in negligence law?
Signup and view all the answers
In negligence cases, what does 'direct and proximate cause' refer to?
In negligence cases, what does 'direct and proximate cause' refer to?
Signup and view all the answers
What is a key consideration regarding intervening acts in tort law?
What is a key consideration regarding intervening acts in tort law?
Signup and view all the answers
What does the term 'causation' refer to in tort law?
What does the term 'causation' refer to in tort law?
Signup and view all the answers
What principle is described by the 'egg-shell skull rule'?
What principle is described by the 'egg-shell skull rule'?
Signup and view all the answers
When applying the 'but for' test, what does this test determine?
When applying the 'but for' test, what does this test determine?
Signup and view all the answers
What is meant by 'foreseeability' in negligence cases?
What is meant by 'foreseeability' in negligence cases?
Signup and view all the answers
Which statement best describes 'loss of a chance'?
Which statement best describes 'loss of a chance'?
Signup and view all the answers
How does the standard of proof in tort law differ from that in criminal law?
How does the standard of proof in tort law differ from that in criminal law?
Signup and view all the answers
What typically breaks the 'chain of causation' in a negligence case?
What typically breaks the 'chain of causation' in a negligence case?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the role of foreseeability in determining liability?
What is the role of foreseeability in determining liability?
Signup and view all the answers
Study Notes
Tort Law: Negligence & Related Matters
- This presentation covers negligence in tort law.
- A review quiz for the last four lectures is included. The quiz covers introduction to tort law, four elements of negligence and duty of care, breach and standard of care, and causation and remoteness.
- The four elements of negligence are duty of care, breach of duty, factual causation, and legal causation.
- Policy considerations and the purposes of tort law are examined as part of an introduction.
- The different interests protected by tort law are discussed.
- Distinctions between tort law, criminal law, and contract law are explored.
- Key cases and legal precedent related to causation, remoteness and the "But for" test are detailed, including:
- Kenny v O'Rourke
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
- Duffy v Rooney and Dunnes Stores
- Baker v Willoughby
- Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd
- The concept of multiple sufficient causes is examined along with potential problems with the "But for" test.
- Examples included in the slides (e.g., a snail on a bottle, a police officer, a sports ball, a learner driver).
- The 'Novus Actus Interveniens' (a new intervening act) concept and its applications in cases such as:
- Breslin v Corcoran
- The legal principle of 'remoteness of damage', including the Re Polemis case are discussed -The Re Polemis case established a direct consequence rule. This concept emphasizes a defendant's liability for all consequences arising out of negligent actions, regardless of foreseeable outcomes. Bankes LJ explained that the exact way the damage happened is immaterial. The issue of how precise the damage has to be in order to be foreseeable is addressed within the lecture. This concept is highlighted in Hughes v Lord Advocate, Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd, Wagon Mound No 1.
- The 'egg-shell skull' rule, as outlined in Burke v John Paul & Co, illustrating that a defendant is responsible for all injuries as a result of negligence regardless of whether the victim is vulnerable or suffered pre-existing injuries.
- The concept of "Loss of a Chance" discussed, and relevant cases including Chaplin v Hicks, Tabet v Gett, Lawson v Lafferière, Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority, Gregg v Scott, and Philp v Ryan.
- Tort standard of proof and its issues are described.
- The role of expert medical testimony and the difficulties in assessing loss of chance in specific cases discussed.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Related Documents
Description
Test your knowledge on the fundamental aspects of negligence in tort law with this quiz. Covering essential topics such as duty of care, breach of duty, and notable legal cases, this quiz is designed for students who want to deepen their understanding of tort law. Challenge yourself and see how well you grasp the core principles discussed in the recent lectures.