Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee |
'But for' test |
|
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority |
The burden falls on the claimant to prove that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm on the balance of probabilities. |
|
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw |
In a multiple cause case the claimant need not show that the defendant's breach of duty was the only cause of the damage, just that it materially contributed to the damage |
|
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 ss 1(1) and 2(1) |
Where 2 or more people are responsible for the same damage, the courts have the power to apportion the damage between them (applies only between the defendants themselves, does not affect the damages recovered by the claimant) |
|
Fairchild v Glenhaven |
Allowed the claimants to rely upon a material increase in risk approach |
|
Sienkiewicz v Grief |
Suggested that the principle of material increase in risk is now strictly limited to cases of scientific uncertainty - mesothelioma may be only such case |
|
Performance Cars v Abraham |
Where a claimant (or his property) has already suffered damage, a later defendant who causes subsequent injury should be liable only to the extent that he makes the claimant's damage worse |
|
Rahman v Arearose |
Psychiatric problems constitute a divisible injury |
|
Scott v Shepherd |
Instinctive reactions in a moment of alarm do not break the chain of causation |
|
McKew v Holland and Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd |
To amount to a novus actus interveniens the claimant's act has to be entirely unreasonable in all the circumstances |
|
The Wagon Mound (No 1) |
Test for remoteness of damage is one of reasonable forseeability. Is the damage such that the reasonable person would have foreseen it? |
|
Hughes v Lord Advocate |
Provided the type of injury is reasonably foreseeable, it is not necessary to foresee the precise way in which the injury is caused |
|
Nettleship v Weston |
For the defence of voluntary assumption of risk to succeed, defendant must establish: 1) That the claimant had full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk, and 2) The claimant willingly consented to accept the risk of being injured due to the defendant's negligence |
|
Dann v Hamilton |
Knowledge of the risk not necessarily sufficient to imply consent to the risk |
|
Section 149 Road Traffic Act 1988 |
Applies to any motor vehicle where insurance for passengers is compulsory - defence of volenti cannot be relied on |
|
Haynes v Harwood |
Rules on rescuers apply equally to professional rescuers and to lay persons |
|
Pitts v Hunt |
That the claimant was involved in an illegal enterprise at the time he was injured may sometimes provide the defendant with a defence - 'ex turpi causa non oritur actio', no action arises from a disgraceful cause |
|
s 1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 |
Where claimant suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of another: a) A claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the claimant b) damages recoverable shall be reduced to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable |
|
Froom v Butcher |
Likely % reduction for contrib neg: C suffered injuries which would have been prevented had a seatbelt been worn - 25% C.... less severe had a seatbelt been worn - 15% Seatbelt would have made no difference - 0% |
|
Capps v Miller |
Same tariff as set out in Froom v Butcher in regard to failure to wear crash helmet |
|
Owens v Brimmell |
Passengers who accept lifts from a driver whom they know to be drunk, can expect to have damages reduced, even if they were drunk themselves |
|
Gough v Thornet |
Test in deciding whether a child has been contributorily negligent - whether an ordinary child of the claimant's age would have taken more care for his safety than the claimant did |
|
Baker v T E Hopkins & Son Ltd |
A rescuer will be judged against the standard of the reasonable rescuer. Only if a rescuer has shown a 'wholly unreasonable disregard for his or her own safety' is there likely to be a finding of contributory negligence |
|
Knightley v Johns |
Negligent acts only break chain of causation if unforeseeable |
|
Robinson v Post Office |
Egg shell skull rule |