Comprehensive first class Tort Law PQ notes from University College London (2010/2020). Notes include concise case summaries, key reasonings to reconcile conflicting case law and detailed answer outlines to problem questions
a. Introduction
Tests
o But-for test (apply first)
o Material Contribution to Injury
o Material Contribution to Risk (only in very limited situations)
PQ Approach
o D has a duty of care & breached it. Did D’s breach of the duty of care cause C’s
loss?
o Novus actus?
o Remoteness?
b. ‘But-For’ Test
But for D’s breach of duty, would C have suffered the harm?
Established on balance of probabilities if chance of causation exceeds 50%, claim
succeeds
Barnett v Chelsea
o C was ill and went to hospital doctor (D) was not feeling well negligently told
patient to see GP the next day C suffered from arsenic poisoning died the next
day
o Held that on the balance of probabilities, chance of causation fell below 50% no
causation no liability
o Even if D assessed C property, could only admit C they next day and administer
antidote after would have been too late
bi. Balance of Probabilities
Not possible to claim for the loss of a chance, as adverse outcome had not yet occurred
Hotson v East Berkshire
o C fell and hurt his hip hospital examined him negligently and sent him home C
developed avascular necrosis
o But C could only that he had a 25% chance of avoiding the condition if he was properly
diagnosed on the balance of probability, claim fails
o C tried to claim that hospital deprived him of the 25% chance of avoiding condition
held that he could not claim for the probability of damage
Gregg v Scott
o D misdiagnosed cancerous a lump under C’s arm as harmless C went to see another
doctor who correctly identified
o If C had been properly diagnosed the first time would have a 42% chance of
, Negligence: Causation and Remoteness
recovery now only 25%. Case was 7 years after C started treatment C was still
disease free
o Held that C could not claim for the probability of damage
o Lord Phillips: Since C was still alive 7 years after chance of recovery was much
higher than 25%
o Lord Hoffmann
o The law commits that you can always identify a particular cause for damage
but a reduced probability in avoiding a damage suggests that you are unsure
whether that damage has been avoided
o Lord Nicholls (dissenting)
o Medical practice is inherently uncertain should recognise that a reduced
chance of recovery constitutes actionable damage
o All or nothing approach does not make sense where C’s prospects of
recovery are deemed as non-existent as long as they fall short of 50%
unprincipled construction
o Baroness Hale
o If loss of chance is acceptable as actionable damage C with a 60%
probability of survival should only be awarded 60% of the damages instead of
the full 100%
o This change in how the law views damages is too radical for the HoL to decide
c. Material Contribution to Injury
o Use when you have several causes working together to produce the damage (eg. 2
hunters shoot the same person at the same time)
o Material contribution requires a more than minimal contribution
Heneghan
o Lord Dyson
o If cause is cumulative use material contribution to damage test
o If cause is divisible (a single instance) use material contribution to risk test
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw
o C worked in D’s workshop for 8 years suffered illness from inhaling silicon dust
(caused cumulatively)
o Two possible causes
o From operating a pneumatic hammer, where D was not negligent
o From swing grinders, where D was negligent
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller firstclasslawnotes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £2.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
