Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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 ...
The House of Lords found that it was impossible to say that the defendant's negligence had caused, or materially contributed, to the injury and the claim was dismissed. It also stated that McGhee articulated no new rule of law, but was rather based upon a robust inference of fact (this understanding of McGhee was rejected in Fairchild v ...
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. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of ...
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 2 All ER 909 is an English tort law case, about the nature of causation. [1] It rejects the idea that people can sue doctors for the loss of a chance to get better, when doctors fail to do as good a job as they could have done.
Likewise, damage can occur without negligence, for example, when someone dies from a fatal disease. In cases involving suicide, physicians and particularly psychiatrists may be to a different standard than other defendants in a tort claim. In most tort cases, suicide is legally viewed as an act which terminates a chain of causality.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.: Landmark case for discussion of proximate cause and its relationship with duty. Court of Appeals of New York. 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99. (1928) POKURA V. WABASH RY. CO., 292 U.S. 98 (1934) ([plaintiffs' negligence is determined by the facts and a reasonable person standard) Fletcher v.
March v Stramare Pty Ltd (E & MH) Pty Ltd (commonly known as March v Stramare) [1] was a High Court of Australia case decided in 1991 on Australian tort law.The case considered the conditions required for causation to be established in tort law, the limitations of the "but for" test and the significance of an intervening act by a third party in determining causation.