negligence - basic decision procedure

Question 1

Negligence basic decision procedure

Answer 1

• Duty of care
• Breach of duty
• Causation
• Damage
• Remoteness
  defences

Question 2

Duty of care - what does lord Atkins’s neighbor principle set out in Donoghue v Stevenson?

Answer 2

• Take reasonable care when harm is reasonably foreseeable

Def may be held liable where c is ‘closely and directly’ affected. By their conduct

Question 3

Duty of care - what are the case and lord bridges three requirements?

Answer 3

Caparo industries plc v Dickman
- Reasonably foreseeable harm
- Proximity
Justice, fairness and reasonableness

Question 4

Duty of care - which case sets out lord reed’s approach?

Answer 4

Robinson v chief constable of West Yorkshire

Question 5

Duty of care - what does lord Reed let out in Robinson v Chief constable?

Answer 5

• in ‘novel cases’ judges have to consider whether they should develop the law incrementally.
  Lord Reed finds support for this point in Caparo Industries v Dickman, per Lord Bridge.

Question 6

Breach of duty - which case gives us the reasonable person test?

Answer 6

Glasgow corporation v Muir, per lord thankerton

Question 7

Breach of Duty - what is the reasonable person standard?

Answer 7

• Objective external test

Insensitive to d’s personal equations and idiosyncrasies

Question 8

Breach of duty considerations - cost of taking care cases?

Answer 8

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

Question 9

Breach of duty considerations - the seriousness of the harm case?

Answer 9

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Question 10

Breach of duty considerations - probability of harm case?

Answer 10

Read v Lyons

Question 11

Breach of duty consideration case and details?

Answer 11

Watt v Hertfordshire CC

- Emergency of woman trapped under car
- Def transported jack on normal vehicle with 3 firefighters steadying, jack slipped and c injured
- Def not liable

Dennings LJ -‘you must balance the risk against the end to be achieved’ - responding to an emergency

Dennings in Obiter - if the accident has occurred in commercial enterprise and without an emergency, def would be held liable

Question 12

Remoteness - which case gives the scope rule?

Answer 12

Overseas tankship ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (Wagon Mound)
- Damage must be of a reasonably foreseeable type
Balance c’s security and def’s freedom of action

Question 13

Remoteness - eggshell Skull principle case and detail?

Answer 13

Smith v Leach Brain & Co ltd
- Where damage is od reasonably foreseeably type and C’s susceptibility to harm means that their losses extend beyond threshold of reasonable foreseeability, they still may be able to recover compensation

- the burn on the lip suffered by the accident victim was reasonably foreseeable; the eggshell principle was applicable to the disease that ultimately led to his death

Lord Parker - ‘it has always been the law of this country… a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him’

Question 14

Remoteness - process of applying eggshell skull principle?

Answer 14

• Harm was reasonably foreseeable
• Extend of harm suffered goes beyond threshold of reasonable foreseeability
  If c has susceptibility, principle can be invoked to make recovery for harm beyond threshold of reasonable foreseeability

Question 15

Duty of care - which case gives us the neighbour principle and what does it say?

Answer 15

• Donoghue v Stevenson (lord Atkin)
• ‘take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions … reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’
• ‘closely and directly effected’ by the act
  Described as ‘apodictic’ by flemming in the law of torts

Question 16

What did lord Atkin say in 1932 about duty of care?

Answer 16

• To say a person is not to injure his neighbour through acts of negligence covers a very large field
• Whole of tort couldn’t use this rule do unto you…
  Ingrained in moral teaching

Question 17

Duty of care - what was john Flemings criticism of the neighbour principle?

Answer 17

• Ambiguity, is it only concerned with foresight (reasonable foreseeability) or doesn’t it consider other factors
  Tension between principle and policy (principle focused here)

Question 18

Duty of care - which case established neighbor principle should be used as a preamble case?

Answer 18

Lord Reid in Dorset yacht co v Home Office
- To be used unless justification to exclude it
Encourage expansion of the law - creates society more attentive to demands of neighbourhood

Question 19

in which case did lord bridges Three Duty of Care-Related Considerations
replace the 2 stage test from Anns?

Answer 19

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman

Question 20

what is Lord Bridge’s Three Duty of Care-Related Considerations?
(Caparo)

Answer 20

The first consideration: reasonable foreseeability of harm.

The second consideration: a relationship of proximity.

The third consideration: ‘the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope’.

Question 21

duty of care

who talked about the conceptual blurring of Caparo?

Answer 21

The interrelationship between reasonable foreseeability of harm and proximity (per Bingham MR (when Caparo was in the Court of Appeal)).
The interrelationship between proximity and justice, fairness and reasonableness (per Neill LJ in James McNaughten (Court of Appeal)).

Question 22

duty of care

who was sceptical about proximity, saying its not a definable concept, in Caparo?

Answer 22

Lord Oliver

Question 23

duty of care

which incremental development case did lord Bridge approve of and follow the approach of in Caparo?

Answer 23

Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (Australian High Court),

It is preferable … that the law should develop novel categories incrementally

(Australians wanted to promote more certainty in the law than provided in Caparo)

Question 24

what is the economic approach to duty of care and the case?

Answer 24

We might decide to impose a duty of care where the cost of taking care is less than the expected harm

United States v Carroll Towing,

(never taken by english judges)

Question 25

duty of care | what did john Flemming say about the impossibility of generalizing?

Answer 25

‘No generalisation can solve the problem upon what basis a duty must arise out of some “relation”, or some “proximity” between the parties’ (The Law of Torts). ‘[W]hat that relation is no one has ever succeeded in capturing in any precise formula’.

Question 26

duty of care | what did john flemming say about control devices?

Answer 26

Concepts such as duty of care and remoteness are ‘control devices Judges exercise strong discretion when they use these and other control devices. If Fleming is right, the distinction between principle and policy collapses.

Question 27

duty of care | which salient features approach case replaced caparo in Australia?

Answer 27

Sullivan v Moody [2001]

Question 28

duty of care | what is Australia's salient features approach?

Answer 28

- considers both principle and policy The Australian High Court addresses matters of principle before it turns to policy considerations only if needed or relevant

Question 29

duty of care | what was Kirby J's ctitique of the salient features approach?

Answer 29

this approach lacks clarity Fine to understand for a high court judge but not understandable or accessible to a normal person, won’t know where they stand in terms of negligence law

Question 30

what is the pure omission principle argument against a duty of care?

Answer 30

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (where the police were held liable for failing to pass on information concerning the suicidal tendencies of a remand prisoner

Question 31

what is the overkill argument against a duty of care?

Answer 31

Rowling v Takaro Properties Ltd (Privy Council)). if you impose liability of a council, they’ll be so worried about being sued, itll prevent them actively working to help and improve society, instead putting more work in to preventing litigation against them

Question 32

why was spring v Guardian a novel application of caparo?

Answer 32

Action concerns ‘pure economic loss’ – not concerned with physical damage or real damage to property, damage is purely financial (had never been a claim of this sort before) Policy of justice fairness and reasonable meant the claim was successful

Question 33

duty of care | what happened in white v jones in relation to incremental development of Caparo?

Answer 33

Process of law moaking by judges in novel cases – Wilson talks about incremental development of the law, this case isn’t directly covered by previous cases, so established principles cant be applied, however judges conclude its okay to extend the law by the slight amount the claimant is asking for here, so claim was successful

Question 34

duty of care | what happened in the policy v principle case of Marc Rich v Bishop Rock that applied Caparo?

Answer 34

D (a classification society) indicated that temporary repairs to vessel would be adequate. C’s cargo was lost at sea. met first 2 caparo requirements (policy) but argued it wasn't in public interest (not just fair reasonable) to impose liability as it may stop these societies doing important work lord Lloyd dissented saying policy argument wasn't strong enough to trump principle

Question 35

duty of care | what did Lord Hoffmann argue in Stovin v Wise?

Answer 35

When policy is ‘properly analysed’, it should not matter whether a judge uses the two-stage test from Anns or the three considerations described by Lord Bridge in Caparo. But Anns is more strongly associated with expansion in the law than is Caparo.

Question 36

in which case was it said the Caparo test was mistaken and only to be used in cases where there's no principle to follow? (where there are principles it is up to judge to decide if law should be developed incrementally)

Answer 36

Lord Reed in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Question 37

breach of duty | what is the compensation act 2006 s1 for?

Answer 37

- courts may consider whether decision in favor of claimant may prevent desirable activity being undertaken (deal with problem of blame culture)

Question 38

what is the key case associated with compo act 2006?

Answer 38

Hopps v Mott MacDonald Ltd: it was not negligent for the Army or a civilian company to transport civilian employees in un-armoured Land Rovers - in iraq 2003 (does go against rule of law though as it happened before the act)

Question 39

what was said in Glasgow Corporation v Muir about breach of duty and pursuit of justice?

Answer 39

Ask question – what would have been reasonably foreseeable at the time the def displayed their conduct (Balancing C’s interest in security and D’s interest in freedom of action.)

Question 40

breach of duty which case (not duty of care) said employers are under duty to provide employees with reasonably safe system of work after employee suffered mental harm (incremental development)?

Answer 40

Walker v Northumberland CC (def only liable for 2nd mental breakdown as they must have made a reasonable 'response'

Question 41

breach of duty | what did lady hale say is important bit about walker case?

Answer 41

that judges should address the question: was harm reasonably foreseeable?

Question 42

breach of duty what did jenny steele say about walker and occupational stress?

Answer 42

since Walker, the entire shape of tort liability for psychiatric harm has altered

Question 43

breach of duty | what are the conflicting opinions about the effects of Walker?

Answer 43

does Walker indicate (a) a strong commitment to the pursuit of corrective justice or (b) suggest the emergence of a (negative) blame culture?

Question 44

what did Bolam v Friern say about breach of duty and medicine?

Answer 44

The test is the standard of the ordinary reasonable man [or woman] exercising … that special skill’.

Question 45

causation what is the but-for test for factual causation and the case for it?

Answer 45

(i) to identify the necessary conditions of an occurrence and (ii) to eliminate irrelevant considerations Davis v Bunn

Question 46

what did lord Asquith say about finding legal causation?

Answer 46

looking for real, direct, substantial cause of the incident basically searching for the wrongdoers

Question 47

causation and judicial discretion | what happened in Baker v Willoughby?

Answer 47

- c involved in road accident due to def carelessness and had reduced mobility - then c was shot and injured leg was amputated - court said the def bore continued responsibility despite the supervening event

Question 48

causation and judicial discretion | what happened in Cf Jobling?

Answer 48

- back injury due to careless employer, earnings reduced by 50%, then suffered disease that stopped him working at all - Court accepted argument that the disease was a supervening cause of the mans loss of earning ridding them of responsibility

Question 49

causation and just apportionment | what happened in Rahman v Arearose?

Answer 49

- def 1 was employer that failed to protect from attack, def 2 carried out surgery negligently - def 1 bore 25% responsibility for PTSD, def 2 responsible for the balance

Question 50

causation | what did lord Wright say about Novus Actus Interveniens?

Answer 50

is there ‘a new cause which disturbs the sequence of events’ and breaks ‘the chain of causation’? (novus actus interveniens)

Question 51

causation and liability for the conduct of third parties what happened in Home office v Dorset?

Answer 51

- home office officials fall asleep on job and crims escape from island on boat - argued the voluntary conduct of the crims broke the causal chain - Found the conduct was very likely to happen therefore home office bears responsibility

Question 52

what was said about the threshold for liability for the conduct of third parties in Ward v Cannock?

Answer 52

has to be ‘virtually certain’ (Scott J).

Question 53

causation and occasioning harm what happened in Stansbie v Troman 1948?

Answer 53

- decorator (def) told to lock house by C, they didn't and the house was burgled - def held liable for reasonably foreseeable loss - not a lot of doctrinal unity when comparing this case to the home office v dorset yatch case

Question 54

proof of causation what happened in the McGhee case?

Answer 54

C left work everyday caked in brick dust – developed skin condition – known that brick dust causes this But it wasn’t known whether the def providing shower facilities at work would’ve prevented the skin condition – this is an evidential gap Duty found but evidential gap at causation part, Claimant couldn’t meet requirement of factual/ but for causation

Question 55

what approach to proof of causation was created in McGhee?

Answer 55

C must show that D (i) breached the duty owed and (ii) materially increased the risk to which C was exposed.

Question 56

what did Lord Wilberforce say about the pursuit of justice in McGhee? (burden of proof)

Answer 56

The creator of the risk’ should ‘suffer from the inherent evidential difficulty’.

Question 57

causation | which cases show the McGhee doctrine being stretched to novel cases?

Answer 57

- fitzgerald v lane | - Clark

Question 58

proof of causation which medical case tried to stretch McGhee and what happened?

Answer 58

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority - def breach duty by giving baby too much oxygen, adding to his blindness condition - Miller said def has added further possible cause rather than enhancing the first cause - court said McGhee still applied and they just stretched it - very controversial, argued case was too different to McGhee

Question 59

proof of causation what happened once Wilsher went to the HOL?

Answer 59

- McGhee not applicable - lord Bridge - causation must be proved on the balance of probabilities (John Flemming observed Bridges dedication to balance of probs)

Question 60

proof of causation what happened in Fairchild case?

Answer 60

- exposure to asbestos; duties breached by more than one employer. - COA applied Wilsher and causation could not be proved - HOL applied McGhee Where D (i) breaches duty owed to C and brings about (ii) a material increase in risk, liability can be imposed on D for (iii) the full loss. (even if they only caused a small amount of the risk)

Question 61

proof of causation what approach came from Fairchild?

Answer 61

HOL said in most cases, C must prove causation on the balance of probabilities. - McGhee only has relevance in exceptional cases.

Question 62

proof of causation which case changed what Fairchild said and what happened?

Answer 62

Barker v Corus - the extent of liability is confined to the extent that D materially increased the risk to which C was exposed - lord Hoffman realised Asbestos claims had become big business - relevant concerns - (i) duration of exposure; (ii) intensity of the exposure; (iii) the type of asbestos

Question 63

proof of causation what was lord Rodgers dissent in Barker?

Answer 63

- desirability of courts rather than parl to help out wrongdoers and their insurers at the expense of the claimants

Question 64

what did s3 Compensation act 2006 mean for proof of causation?

Answer 64

’): A ‘responsible person’ (i.e., a person who owed a duty to C) is liable for all relevant harm (even if C has been exposed to asbestos by others). - under Barker c would have to sue each employer so this is a return to Fairchild

Question 65

causation and the concept of harm | what happened in Re Pleural Plaques? asbestos case

Answer 65

- HOL reject claims to do with thickness of membrane around lungs - also rejected Psych injury resulting from fear of the disease

Question 66

proof of causation what happened in the asbestos case of Greif?

Answer 66

- def walk around factory and exposed to asbestos by only one employer - def argued (based on XYZ 2002 case) that c should have to prove that def doubled the risk - judge accepted this and rejected the claim

Question 67

proof of causation what happened with Greif at COA?

Answer 67

- trial judge should have applied Fairchild | - so def was liable in full even if there was another source of asbestose in play

Question 68

proof of causation what happened with Greif at supreme court?

Answer 68

appeal was dismissed (so def liable) - lord rodger said the Fairchild exception applies in single exposure cases - The claimant was ‘entitled to succeed’ if she proved that D’s breach of duty materially increased the risk

Question 69

proof of causation in Greif, what did supreme court say was material risk?

Answer 69

… “material” is intended to exclude an increase in risk that is so insignificant.. de minimis principle (lord philips) 'it's a question for the judge on the facts of that particular case' (in relation to if its de minimis)

Question 70

proof of causation what was considered in the Williams case when deciding if his exposure to asbestos was de minimis?

Answer 70

- what level of knowledge (in 1974) should the university have had about the risks posed by the relevant quantity of asbestos? - with this knowledge, should it have been reasonably foreseeable to the University - were there reasonable steps that the University ought to have taken

Question 71

what was the outcome of Williams in COA?

Answer 71

- trial judge held uni liable for the harm - COA agreed they were responsible - but said with the lack of knowledge in 1974 it was not reasonably foreseeable so they were not liable

Question 72

proof of causation what happened in the American case of Sindell?

Answer 72

Each of the 11 manufacturers should be held liable for that proportion of C’s injuries that corresponded to their share of the D.E.S. market.

Question 73

proof of causation what did the american case of Ayers say about mental injury?

Answer 73

- Plaintiff exposed to toxic pollution - cancerphobia considered compensable mental injury (contrast with pleural plaques) - goes against rrad refusal to compensate for increased susceptibility to disease

Question 74

what American case showed the dangers of pro-claimant approach to proof of causation?

Answer 74

- snell in canada supreme court | - the US medical malpractice crisis of the 1970s; inflated insurance premiums

Question 75

what is the case timeline of the politics of causation?

Answer 75

- McGhee: pro-claimant development. - Wilsher (House of Lords): pro-defendant return to traditionalism (per Lord Bridge). - Fairchild: pro-claimant development. - Barker v Corus: pro-defendant retrenchment. - Compensation Act 2006, section 3: pro-claimant.

Question 76

what is the rationale for the remoteness doctrine?

Answer 76

Balancing C’s interest in security and D’s freedom of action; not discouraging enterprise by tilting the law too far towards C; not imposing disproportionate burdens on D.

Question 77

remoteness | what case gives the reasonable foreseeability test?

Answer 77

Wagon Mound (No 1) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd)

Question 78

remoteness what did Viscount Simonds say about the foreseeability test in Wagon Mound?

Answer 78

a man must be considered to be responsible for the probable consequences of his act (high judicial discretion) compare balancing here with Walker v Northumberland in breach of duty)

Question 79

remoteness what did john flemming say about reasonable foreseeability test?

Answer 79

Judges are able to attach importance to the features of a case that strike them as salient.

Question 80

remoteness what did Huges v Lord Advokate say?

Answer 80

Harm must be of a reasonably foreseeable type.

Question 81

remoteness what happened in the Jolley v Sutton case?

Answer 81

- lord Hoffman emphasise scope of thr risk - rotten condition of the boat and being abandoned - made it rich for the taking by children (so was foreseeable)

Question 82

remoteness what are the 2 arguments of the eggshell skull principle?

Answer 82

Argument no 1: harm is of a reasonably foreseeable type (Hughes v Lord Advocate). Where this is accepted, move on to – Argument no 2: C has an eggshell skull (or other congenital weakness) and D is, hence, liable for unforeseeable loss(es).

Question 83

remoteness what happened in the eggshell skull case of Pigney?

Answer 83

carelessness leads to unforeseeable illness and then suicide; D held liable.

Question 84

remoteness what happened in the Corr case?

Answer 84

- corr left disfigured by work, developed PTSD and then suicide 6 years later - at trial said it wasn't reasonably foreseeable - but COA said it was reasonably foreseeable and HOL agreed

Question 85

remoteness what did Lord Bingham say about the Corr case?

Answer 85

Corr's suicide wasnt a break in the causal chain as it wasnt a voluntary informed decision

Question 86

defenses what do claimants have to show?

Answer 86

``` Duty owed, Breach of duty Causation (factual & legal), Damage, Damage is not too remote. ```

Question 87

defences what do defendants have to show?

Answer 87

That they can meet the requirements of any defence (e.g., consent) on which they seek to rely Defendants have to prove on the balance of probabilities that they can meet the relevant requirements ‘He [or she] who asserts must prove’ (Wakelin v London & South Western Railway)

Question 88

what is the illegality defence for Holman 1775?

Answer 88

no court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act

Question 89

what approach was established in national coal board case for illegality defence?

Answer 89

To run this defence, D must establish a causal connection between (i) C’s wrongful conduct and (ii) the harm suffered by C

Question 90

what are the 2 concepts of the illegality defense?

Answer 90

1 The defence is based on considerations of public policy: e.g., compensating C would be ‘shocking to the public conscience’ or send out an undesirable signal to criminals and other wrongdoers. Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police. 2 C’s participation in criminality or wrongdoing makes it impossible for judges to specify a standard of care. Jackson v Harrison (Australian High Court).

Question 91

illegality defence which approach from Kirkham was disproved by HOL?

Answer 91

the illegality defence is not confined to criminal conduct. it embraces conduct that would ‘shock’ an ordinary citizen HOL rejected

Question 92

defences what was said about joint illegal activity in Pitts v Hunt?

Answer 92

Joint illegal activity (drunken, uninsured, unlicensed motorcyclist and passenger). impossible to determine standard of care

Question 93

illegality defence what happened in the Revill case?

Answer 93

Wakened by the noise of the plaintiff … trying to break open the shed, the defendant [an elderly man] took the shotgun, loaded it, poked the barrel through a small hole in the door, … and fired’. Damages awarded to C. But the sum awarded was reduced by two-thirds.

Question 94

illegality defence what happened in Gray v Thames Trains

Answer 94

- gray injured in rail crash, killed someone 2 years later while mentally ill - guilty of manslaughter - could gray recover compo for loss of earnings after the stabbing - trial judge said illegality defence applied, COA said it didn't - HOL unanimously said the defence applied and civil law must reflect any criminal sentences already imposed

Question 95

illegality defence which canadian supreme court case supported the HOL decision in Gray?

Answer 95

Hall v Hebert [1993]

Question 96

which case said the illegality defense can also extend to immorality?

Answer 96

Nayyar (2009)

Question 97

illegality defense what did Goudkamp say about Nayyar and immorality?

Answer 97

have taken tort law in the wrong direction particularly problematic

Question 98

illegality defense what happened in Henderson v Dorset Health 2020?

Answer 98

- mentally ill woman stabbed her mother to death (while living in the community – having previously been hospitalized). - charged with manslaughter - illegality defence applied and SC refused to depart from Gray

Question 99

defences what is required for the consent defence?

Answer 99

- Voluntary agreement: - knowledge of relevant risks - test for knowledge is subjective - constructive knowledge of what C ought reasonably to have known (Dixon v king)

Question 100

what did Markesinis say about the limited scope of consent defence?

Answer 100

- should be applied with extreme caution | - especially in employment cases

Question 101

which act limits to consent defence in vehicle cases?

Answer 101

Road Traffic Act 1988

Question 102

defenses what is vicarious liability?

Answer 102

A form of secondary liability – imposed on one person for the tort of another. The tortfeasor remains potentially liable. (employer normally has deeper pockets)

Question 103

what did Gleghorn v Oldham say about consent defence and sporting activities?

Answer 103

Consent rarely yields a defence where d’s conduct goes beyond the normal rules of the game (golfer hitting spectator with club)

Question 104

what did Simms say about consent and sporting activities?

Answer 104

rugby league player thrown against wall in the course of a tackle. Held to have assented to run relevant risk(s).

Question 105

what is the position on consent and rescuers in the Baker case?

Answer 105

A doctor seeks to rescue two of D’s employees from a well; The doctor is overcome by fumes and dies. D seeks to run a novus actus interveniens argument. D’s argument is rejected by the Court of Appeal. Morris LJ: ‘Those who put men in peril can hardly be heard to say that the rescue attempt was not caused by the creation of the peril’.

Question 106

defences what is the policy of contributory negligence from contributory negligence act 1945?

Answer 106

Where C’s ‘damage’ arises partly from his or her own ‘fault’ and partly from D’s ‘fault’, courts are required to apportion responsibility for the losses

Question 107

what was said about contributory negligence in the Nance case?

Answer 107

Viscount simon said its a partial defence that is a shield against the plaintiff's claim def must establish fault on C's part via reasonable person standard

Question 108

defense what was said in the contributory negligence case of Owens?

Answer 108

contributory negligence may be pleaded where a passenger consents to be driven by an intoxicated driver.

Question 109

defense what was said in the contributory negligence case of Gregory?

Answer 109

contributory negligence may be pleaded where c drives a vehicle he or she knows to be defective

Question 110

defense what happened in the contributory negligence and children case of Yachuck?

Answer 110

petrol supplied by D to a nine-year old (who suffers injury in a subsequent explosion). C held not to have been contributorily negligent.

Question 111

what was said about contributory negligence and apportionment in Pitts v Hunt?

Answer 111

cant make 100% deduction from C a 100% deduction was at odds with the requirement that both parties be at ‘fault’.

Question 112

defense how does Corr case link to contributory negligence?

Answer 112

- some judges in HOL argued if the defense had bee argued they would have made 20% deduction from Corr - O'sullivan said blaming him for his own death was distasteful

Question 113

contribution what does the civil liability (contribution) act 1978 say?

Answer 113

- anyone liable in respect of damages can recover contribution from other persons liable for the same damage

Question 114

defense how did the Fitzgerald case address how to approach contributory considerations?

Answer 114

Address the question of contributory negligence first, and then – Address the question of contribution (as between two or more defendants).

Question 115

defense what happened in the contributory negligence case of Fitzgerald v Land?

Answer 115

- c walk onto crossing when lights aginst him - one driver carelessly hit him then another one did - The trial judge held all three parties equally to blame. C’s damages reduced by one third (under the 1945 Act). - Thereafter, the 1978 Act was applied: each of the defendants had to pay half of the resulting sum. approved by the House of Lords.