tort

• to succeed in a negligence claim you need duty, breach, causation and no defence
• duty of care of road users


  Nettleship, Jackson
• doctors owe patients a duty of care


  Bolam, Bolitho
• defences to negligence: contributory negligence, consent (volenti) and illegality
• key case in contributory negligence


  Jackson v Murray (2015), parties were equally blameworthy
• volenti does not apply to cases of volunteer, sporting injuries or alcohol/drugs
• volenti subjective test


  D has to show that C was actually aware of the risks
• establishing illegality case


  Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (2002)
• divisible injury


  greater exposure will worsen the condition
• indivisible injury


  binary they either suffer or they dont
• McGhee v National Coal Board (1973)


  D is liable by materially increasing the risk of C incurring damage
• Factual causation


  did D's breach contribute to the loss/injury C suffered
• where factual causation is complicated

  multiple potential causes, unjust results, indeterminate cause, loss of chance, multiple sufficient causes
• multiple potential causes 


  lack of scientific knowledge makes it impossible to establish a factual cause
• unjust results


  we can work out the factual cause but the result appears unjust
• indeterminate cause


  where there is more than one negligent D, but neither can be proved to be the cause of harm
• loss of chance


  where C argues they lost the chance of avoiding injury as a result of D negligence
• multiple potential causes case


  Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1987)
• mesolithioma exception


  Fairchild (2002)
• Fairchild (2002)


  problems arose because each claimant had worked for more than one employer
• Barker (2006)


  D only liable for damages proportionate to the asbestos exposure
• significance of Barker


  both extends and narrows the rules in Fairchild
• Sienkiewicz (2011)


  the Fairchild exception applies to cases of mesolithioma involving a single D
• failure to inform case


  Chester v Afshar (2005)
• indeterminate causes case


  Fitzgerald v Land (1987), used material increase in risk established in McGhee
• loss of chance case


  Gregg v Scott (2005), has to prove it was more than 50%
• legal causation


  remoteness and intervening acts
• remoteness


  reasonable foreseeability- that C may suffer losses of that kind if D failed to take reasonable care
• limits of foreseeability rules


  the egg shell skull rule- does'nt matter if C was more susceptible to harm
• the egg shell skull rule case


  Smith v Leech Brain (1962)
• intervening acts case


  Knightley v Johns (1982)
• primary victim of psychiatric harm


  has been physically injured or was within the zone of physical injury
• secondary victim of psychiatric harm


  suffers a psychiatric illness by seeing or learning about it occurring to someone else
• primary victim case


  Page v Smith (1996)
• Page v Smith (1996)


  reasonably foreseeable that D's negligence may cause physical harm to C
• Secondary victim case


  Alcock (1992)
• Alcock (1992)


  lack of proximity meant the police didn't owe them a duty of care
• Alcock test


  must be suffering from a recognised psychiatric illness, had a close tie of love and affection with pv, was close to the accident in time and space, directly perceived the incident
• proximity in time and space case


  McLoughlin v O'Brien (1982)
• directly perceiving the accident


  Taylor v A novo Ltd (2013)- not present at original accident