Apportionment and multiple sufficient causes

Question 1

What is apportionment in the context of damages?

Answer 1

It is a calculation to apply once factual causation is established, dividing liability between defendants who have caused part of a loss.

Question 2

What is the primary goal of the courts when apportioning liability between multiple defendants?

Answer 2

To produce a practical result, providing compensation to the claimant while recognising the respective fault of the defendants.

Question 3

In Fitzgerald v Lane & Patel, what was the factual scenario involving the claimant and two defendants?

Answer 3

The claimant crossed against a red light and was hit by a first car, then thrown into the path of a second car.

Question 4

In Fitzgerald v Lane & Patel, why was it necessary to apportion liability?

Answer 4

It was impossible to determine which of the two collisions caused the specific injuries or to what extent each contributed.

Question 5

How was liability apportioned in Fitzgerald v Lane & Patel between the two defendants and the claimant?

Answer 5

Each defendant was 25% liable, and the claimant was found 50% liable for his own injuries.

Question 6

Under s 3 of the Compensation Act 2006, what type of liability applies to defendants in mesothelioma cases?

Answer 6

Defendants are jointly and severally liable.

Question 7

What does ‘jointly and severally liable’ mean for a claimant in a mesothelioma case?

Answer 7

The claimant can recover the whole sum of damages from any or all of the negligent employers.

Question 8

What legal problem is addressed by the principle of ‘multiple sufficient causes’?

Answer 8

When a claimant suffers damage from a defendant’s negligence, and a later event causes the same or worse damage.

Question 9

In cases of multiple sufficient causes, what is the key characteristic of the defendants’ actions?

Answer 9

Each defendant passes the ‘but for’ test for distinct, separate losses that occur sequentially.

Question 10

In Performance Cars v Abraham, what damage did the first non-party driver cause to the Rolls Royce?

Answer 10

The first collision caused damage that required a respray of the lower part of the car.

Question 11

What was the legal outcome in Performance Cars v Abraham for the second driver who caused similar damage?

Answer 11

The second defendant was not liable as the need for a respray already existed, meaning they caused no additional damage.

Question 12

What injuries did the claimant suffer due to the defendant’s negligence in Baker v Willoughby?

Answer 12

The claimant suffered a leg injury that caused pain and stiffness.

Question 13

What was the second, subsequent event that occurred to the claimant in Baker v Willoughby?

Answer 13

The claimant was shot in the injured leg during a robbery, and the leg had to be amputated.

Question 14

In Baker v Willoughby, what was the court’s decision regarding the first defendant’s liability after the amputation?

Answer 14

The first defendant’s liability for the original injuries continued beyond the time of the robbery.

Question 15

According to the ruling in Baker v Willoughby, who is liable for any additional losses caused by the second tortious event?

Answer 15

The second tortfeasor (the robber, if found) would be liable for any additional losses.

Question 16

What has been suggested as a policy reason for the decision in Baker v Willoughby?

Answer 16

To prevent ‘manifest injustice’ as the robbers could not be found and would likely be unable to pay compensation.

Question 17

In Jobling v Associated Dairies, what was the initial injury caused by the defendant’s negligence?

Answer 17

The claimant injured their back, which resulted in reduced earnings.

Question 18

In Jobling v Associated Dairies, what was the nature of the second event that affected the claimant?

Answer 18

The claimant suffered a further, non-tortious back injury arising from an unconnected illness, making him unable to work.

Question 19

What was the key difference between the second event in Baker v Willoughby and the second event in Jobling v Associated Dairies?

Answer 19

The second event was tortious in Baker, whereas it was a natural, non-tortious event in Jobling.

Question 20

How did the court rule on the defendant’s liability in Jobling v Associated Dairies?

Answer 20

The defendant’s liability ceased at the point the further, natural back injury developed.

Question 21

The court in Jobling v Associated Dairies held that a defendant does not have to compensate the claimant for the ‘_____ of life’.

Answer 21

vicissitudes

Question 22

Rule: If a second defendant has not caused any additional damage to the claimant, what is their liability?

Answer 22

They will not be liable.

Question 23

Rule: If a second event that harms the claimant is tortious, for how long is the first defendant liable for the original damage?

Answer 23

The first defendant remains liable for the original damage past the point of the second event.

Question 24

Rule: If a second event that harms the claimant is naturally occurring, what is the extent of the original defendant’s liability?

Answer 24

The defendant is liable for damage only up to the point of the natural event.