Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 2 WLR 422 is an English tort law case that applies the "but for" test of causation. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Facts
Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. In it, the House of Lords decided that when a doctor fails to inform a patient of the risks of surgery, it is not necessary to show that the failure to inform caused the harm incurred.
Tort, negligence, factual causation, McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] UKHL 7 , 1 W.L.R. 1, is a leading tort case decided by the House of Lords . The Lords held that where a breach of duty has a material effect on the likelihood of injury then the subsequent injury will be said to have been caused by the breach.
Causation, employer liability, material increase in risk Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law . It concerned malignant mesothelioma , a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres.
84. Academic writers have suggested that in cases of clinical negligence, the need to prove causation is too restrictive of liability. This argument has appealed to judges in some jurisdictions; in some, but not all, of the States of the United States and most recently in New South Wales and Ireland: Rufo v Hosking (1 November 2004) [2004] NSWCA 391); Philp v Ryan (17 December 2004) [2004] 1 ...
It was his negligence which [sic] caused the accident. It also was a prime cause of the whole of the damage." Thus, at p296: "(At times) the evidence will show that the failure made all the difference. The damage would have been prevented altogether if a seat belt had been worn. In such cases I would suggest that the damages should be reduced ...
Causation is typically a bigger issue in negligence cases than intentional torts. However, as mentioned previously, it is an element of any tort. The defendant's act must be an actual cause and a proximate cause of the result in a particular cause of action.
Sometimes causation is one part of a multi-stage test for legal liability. For example, for the defendant to be held liable for the tort of negligence, the defendant must have owed the plaintiff a duty of care, breached that duty, by so doing caused damage to the plaintiff, and that damage must not have been too remote. Causation is just one ...