1081768
Description
Mind Map by j.wisbey.12, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by j.wisbey.12
almost 10 years ago
|
|
Causation + Remoteness
- Factual Causation
- The pursuer must prove factual causation
- The 'but for' test can be used, but problems with ommissions
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
- The pursuer must prove factual causation
- Material Contribution
- Need a balance of
probabilities - Wardlaw v
Bonnington Castings Ltd
- McGhee v NCB. No
difference between
increasing risk and
materially contributing
- Need a balance of
probabilities - Wardlaw v
Bonnington Castings Ltd
- Addressing the atribution problem
- Fairchild v Glenhaven
Funeral Services
- Parameters
of Fairchild
exception
- 1. Duty intended to protect employees
- 2. Intended to create civil right
- 3. Greater
exposure to
asbestos, greater
risk of injury
- 4. Cannot prove
which dust is guilty
- 5. Employee contracted disease which
he should have been protected from
- Fairchild v Glenhaven
Funeral Services
- Legal Causation
- Novus actus inteveniens
- An external event,
conduct of 3rd
party, conduct of
victim themselves
- An external event,
conduct of 3rd
party, conduct of
victim themselves
- A new delict needs to occur.
- Reasonable forseeability of victims actions -
Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council
- Novus actus inteveniens
- Remoteness of damage
- Prevents wrongdoer from having
to pay results of wrongdoing
- The grand rule
- 1. Damages directly and naturally arising
- 2.Reasonable foreseeability
- Which rule has priority?
- Result: not liable for things
unforeseeable, must take victim
as they find them, novus actus
interveniens
- Result: not liable for things
unforeseeable, must take victim
as they find them, novus actus
interveniens
- 1. Damages directly and naturally arising
- Prevents wrongdoer from having
to pay results of wrongdoing
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.