1
Q
Wardlaw v Bonnington Castings
A
Causation satisfied. “material contribution” test satisfied from grinders so liability for whole injury followed.
2
Q
Williams v Bermuda Hospital Board
A
- Delay in appendicitis
- “material contribution”
- sepsis from natural sources but harm worse due to hospitals delay in diagnosis
3
Q
Fairchild
A
- “material contribution” must actually have increased risk/conduct of injury
- risk must be by substantion of same agent
- all employers were joint and severally liable
- even an 18% increase in risk established causation
4
Q
Greg v Scott
A
- delay in diagnosis reduced chances of survival
- no claim: prospects less than 50%,
- only 18% better chance of survival over 10 years
5
Q
Distinction between commercial and medical cases (causation)?
A
> commercial: real chance
> medical: balance of probabilities
6
Q
Mcghee v National Coal Board
A
- pursuers expert medical witness could not say that this made a material contribution
- materially increase the risk that he would contract dermatitis . Held that this was enough for employers to be liable.
7
Q
Barnett v Chelsea
A
- failure to diagnose a condition that was in any even incurable: no causation
- “but for”.. death regardless
8
Q
Wilsher v Essex AHA
A
- too much oxygen - potential cause of baby’s blindness
- existence of up to 5 possibilities
- could not prove that this was a factor
9
Q
Novus actus interveniens? 2 cases.
A
New intervening act that can disrupt original liability.
e.g.
McKew v Holland (leg)
cf.
Corr (PTSD > dep. > death: causal connection)
10
Q
Grant v Sun Shipping
A
- Subsequent negligence was not a novus actus interveniens
- liability shared for
i) failure to shut hatch
ii) failure to check if shut
11
Q
Robinson v Chief Constable
A
- chain not interrupted by resisting arrest
- police failed to argue new act by suspect trying to run away
Delict
flashcards
Decks in class (8)
# Cards
