40 causation and remoteness of damage

what is factual causation?

but for

barnett?

poisoned, died, would have died anyway.

chester?

consent to treatment, back problem, nerve damage, paralysis, failure of disclosing

other instances?

lost chance of full recovery

several concurrent cause of harm

consecutive causes of harm

loss of chance where there is 75% chance of permanent diability?

hotson

cancerous lump 42%?

Gregg

material contribution to the disease?

bonnington

what is material contribution?

one possible cause of injury, increased the risk of the injury occuring.

lack of washing facilities at a brick kiln materially contributed?

McGhee

bailey?

but for the brain damage, she wouldn’t have choked on her own vomit after a heart attack.

Wilsher?

5 seperate medical conditions plus negligence, hard to know what had materially contributed.

consecutive?

same damage, first event is the cause

baker?

traffic accident injured leg, robbery shot leg, amputation, first person was responsible for all the damage.

jobling?

back injury, spinal disease, reduced earning, spinal disease was brought on by natural causes.

fitzgerald?

hit negligently by 2 drivers, held liable

multiple tortfeasors: holtby?

asbetosis inhaled while at the job and other jobs, 75%

may not recover the whole amount: fairchild?

mesothelioma from asbetosis, from a number of employers who all denied it because it can’t be proved at what point it was contracted, policy decision, compensation is full

barker?

8 yeras, six weeks, 20 years, self-employed for 20 years, reduced by 20%

s3(1) of Compensation Act 2006?

a material contribution to risk as a result of asbestos exposure causing mesothelioma.

Sienkiewicz?

not a single exposure (Fairchild did not apply as it was not a one time material contribution, it was minimal exposure)

'doubles the risk test’ = only if occupational exposure doubles their risk of mesothelioma = UNSUITABLE FOR MESOTHELIOMA

18% only

still liable.

intervening acts by?

claimant

third party

lord reid?

injured man cannot hold the defendant liable for injury caused by his own unreasonable conduct.

own: McKew?

walked on stairs without hand rails knowing his leg could give out.

own: wieland?

surgical collar, prevents proper vision, tripped on the stairs not unreasonable.

own: spencer?

failed to wear his fake leg which was contributory negligent.

third party: Knightley?

defendant’s negligent driving caused a road tunnel to be blocked, police officer sent by police inspector (claimant) to drive against traffic, breaking chain of causation, not liable.

The Wagon Mound?

oil spill, welding determined to be safe, caused fire, damaged ships, the test for remoteness of damage was whether the damage was forseeable.

doughty?

a chemical reaction that was not foreseeable before because it was unknown did not pass the test for remoteness of damage as it was not forseebale.

smith : thin skull rule?

burn to his lip, already in a pre-malignant state, developed cancer and died, not foreseeable, but thin skull rul applies.