Tort Law

• What must be proven regarding the defendant's actions in a negligence claim?

  The defendant's actions must have fallen below the appropriate standard of care
• What is the primary test used to establish factual causation in negligence cases?

  The ‘but for’ test
• What was the outcome of Barnett v Kensington regarding the doctor's liability?

  • Mr. Barnett died from arsenic poisoning
  • The doctor was not liable due to the application of the 'but for' test
  • The case failed on causation
• What was the key issue in McWilliams v Sir William Arrol?

  • Claimant fell to his death at work
  • He was not wearing a safety harness
  • Employers proved he rarely used the safety belt
• What is the civil standard of proof in negligence cases?

  The balance of probabilities
• What does the balance of probabilities mean in a court case?

  The court must be convinced the case has been proven over 50%
• In Hotson v Berkshire area health authority, what was the chance of negligence being a cause?

  25%
• Why was the claim unsuccessful in Gregg v Scott?

  Because the prospect of disease-free survival dropped below 50%
• What are the two types of multiple causes in negligence cases?

  • Concurrent causes: more than one cause at the same time
  • Successive causes: one cause following another
• In Jobling v Associated Dairies, what limited the compensation for the claimant?

  Compensation was limited to the point before he contracted the disease
• What are the exceptions to the 'but for' test?

  • Multiple potential causes
  • Multiple sufficient causes
  • Material contribution to the harm
  • Material contribution to the risk of harm
• In Bonnington v Wardlaw Castings, what condition did the claimant contract?

  Pneumoconiosis
• What was the breach of duty in McGee v National Coal Board?

  The defendant failed to provide washing and showering facilities
• What must the claimant prove regarding material contribution in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority?

  Evidence of material contribution
• What was the significance of Fairchild v Glenhaven funeral services?

  • Joint and several liability established
  • Claimants exposed to asbestos by multiple employers
  • Unable to identify which employer specifically exposed them
• In Barker v Corus UK Ltd, how was compensation determined for mesothelioma cases?

  Based on the period the claimant worked for the employer and was exposed to asbestos
• What does the s.3 Compensation Act 2006 apply to?

  It applies to mesothelioma cases with only one negligent employer
• What are the implications of the 'loss of chance' doctrine in negligence claims?

  • No recovery for loss of a chance if below 50%
  • Claims can fail if the chance of success is not sufficiently high