1-18 of 18 Results

  • Keyword: but for test x
Clear all

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Gregg v Scott [2005] 2 AC 176  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Gregg v Scott [2005] 2 AC 176. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Lunney & Oliphant's Tort Law

5. Causation and Scope of Liability  

Donal Nolan and Ken Oliphant

Before liability can arise in negligence a causal link must be established between the negligence of the defendant and the injury for which the claimant claims compensation. The first hurdle that must be overcome is to show an historical connection between the defendant’s negligence and the injury (factual causation). This is normally decided by the application of the but-for test: but for the defendant’s negligence, would the claimant have suffered the injury that they did? If factual causation is satisfied, the claimant must then show that the defendant should be legally responsible for the damage the claimant has suffered. This second strand of the causation enquiry may involve issues of ‘legal causation’, which is to say consideration of the effect of intervening acts, whether of the claimant or of a third party, occurring between the defendant’s negligence and the claimant’s injury. It may also involve consideration of whether the defendant should not have to pay for the full extent of the damage because it is considered too remote. These issues are considered in this chapter.

Chapter

Cover Tort Law: Text and Materials

5. Causation and Scope of Liability  

Before liability can arise in negligence a causal link must be established between the negligence of the defendant and the injury for which the claimant claims compensation. The first hurdle that must be overcome is to show an historical connection between the defendant’s negligence and the injury (factual causation). This is normally decided by the application of the but-for test: but for the defendant’s negligence, would the claimant have suffered the injury that he or she did? If factual causation is satisfied, the claimant must then show that the defendant should be legally responsible for the damage the claimant has suffered. This second strand of the causation enquiry may involve issues of ‘legal causation’, which is to say consideration of the effect of intervening acts, whether of the claimant or of a third party, occurring between the defendant’s negligence and the claimant’s injury. It may also involve consideration of whether the defendant should not have to pay for the full extent of the damage because it is considered too remote. These issues are considered in this chapter.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Gregg v Scott [2005] 2 AC 176  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Gregg v Scott [2005] 2 AC 176. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Concentrate Questions and Answers Tort Law

4. Negligence III: Causation and Remoteness of Damage  

Dr Karen Dyer and Dr Anil Balan

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses negligence in terms of causation and remoteness of damage. To answer questions on this topic, students need to understand the following: the concept of causation in negligence; causation in fact: the standard ‘but for’ test; variations of the ‘but for’ test: unknown causes, consecutive causes, and cumulative causes; causation in law: the test for ‘remoteness of damage’; the ‘eggshell-skull’ rule; and novus actus interveniens (new intervening acts): the act of the claimant, the act of third parties, and natural events.

Chapter

Cover Tort Law Directions

4. Negligence: causation  

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. In addition to duty of care and breach of that duty, the third essential element to bring a successful action in negligence is causation of damage. In other words, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the breach caused his damage. The defendant cannot be made liable for the harm suffered by the claimant if he is not responsible, or partly responsible, for such harm—even if he has been negligent. The question of causation can be divided into two issues: causation in fact and causation in law (also known as remoteness). The primary means of establishing factual causation is the ‘but for’ test. Reasonable foreseeability of damage of the relevant type (Wagon Mound) is required to establish that the claimant’s injury is not too remote. The chain of causation may be broken by unreasonable or unforeseeable acts or events (novus actus interveniens).

Chapter

Cover Tort Law Concentrate

7. Causation in fact  

This chapter discusses the law on causation in fact. This is a matter of historical fact and can be addressed initially by the ‘but-for’ test. However, the but-for test is inadequate to establish causation in a number of different situations: unknown causes, cumulative causes, and consecutive causes and those in which the test produces an illogical or unjust outcome. It is an area in which recent policy-driven decisions have revived the approach of ‘material increase in risk’, as in the asbestos case of Fairchild v Glenhaven. Allocation of liability has been addressed in the Compensation Act 2006, s 3.

Chapter

Cover Tort Law Concentrate

8. Causation  

Intervening acts and remoteness

This chapter discusses the law on intervening acts and remoteness. There are a range of situations in which the defendant’s act can be a cause of the claimant’s loss because it satisfies the ‘but-for’ test. However, this is followed by one or more events which contribute to the eventual damage in such a way that the chain of causation can be broken. This is sometimes referred to as an intervening act (or novus actus interveniens), and such acts can be divided into three categories: actions by the claimant himself, actions by a third party, and natural events. Remoteness is a simpler way of describing what is also known as causation in law, and is concerned with the extent of a defendant’s duty. The key case is The Wagon Mound (No 1) where the test of reasonable foreseeability of damage was adopted.

Chapter

Cover Medical Law Concentrate

2. Medical negligence  

This chapter deals with medical negligence and how claims can be brought in the tort of negligence via three requirements: the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care; the defendant’s performance fell below the standard expected; and that the claimant’s injury was caused by the breach of duty. The duty of care in doctor–patient relationships and in ‘good Samaritan’ situations is considered. The Bolam test is discussed, which is used to judge the standard of care expected from doctors (subject to the Bolitho principle), as well as tests to establish causation, such as the ‘but for’ test. Relevant cases are cited, where appropriate. Criminal negligence is also discussed.