120 likes | 273 Views
BUSINESS LAW 1. NEGLIGENCE - CAUSATION. Content. Causation. Remoteness of Damage. Defences. CAUSATION ‘But For’ Test Claimant must show that “but for” defendant’s actions his loss would not have occurred. ‘But for’ test. Cutler v Vauxhall Motors [1971]
E N D
BUSINESS LAW 1 NEGLIGENCE - CAUSATION
Content • Causation. • Remoteness of Damage. • Defences.
CAUSATION ‘But For’ Test Claimant must show that “but for” defendant’s actions his loss would not have occurred.
‘But for’ test Cutler v Vauxhall Motors [1971] Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC [1969] Robinson v Post Office [1974].
Different sources of harm Claimant must show that defendant’s breach was a material contributory cause of injury. Wilsher v Essex AHA [1998] Hotson v East Berkshire AHA [1987].
More than one defendant Where claimant sustains injury by two or more independent defendants, the courts are prepared to apportion responsibility for injury caused. Baker v Willoughby [1970]
Novus Actus Interveniens If the chain of causation is broken, then the defendant will not be liable for damage caused after break.
Types of intervening acts • Natural Events Carslogie Steamship v Royal Norwegian Government [1952] • Act of a Third Party Lamb v Camden LBC [1981] Knightley v Johns [1982]. • Act of claimant McKew v Holland, Hannen and Cubbitts [1969].
Remoteness of Damage Claimant must show that damage caused by defendant was reasonably foreseeable. The Wagon Mound (No 1 ) [1961]
Examples of remoteness Stewart v West African Terminals [1964] Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing [1964]. Tremain v Pike [1969].
Contributory Negligence Claimant is deemed to have contributed to his own injury and so damages awarded reduced accordingly. Jayes v IMI [1985]
Volenti Non Fit Injuria Where the claimant is held to have consented to or accepted the risk of harm, he cannot then sue if he suffers that harm. ICI v Shatwell [1965] Dann v Hamilton [1939].