Case Study: Tort Of Negligence
This case is in regards to the tort of negligence, with the central issue being causation. With the evidence provided, it is necessary to determine whether Vera and PC Webster are owed a duty of care and subsequently have any claims.
Firstly, the 'but for' test is to be applied, in which the courts ask: 'but for the defendant's action, would the damage have occurred?' The courts have accepted that drivers automatically owes a duty of care to every other road user , including pedestrians. Jack's standards have fallen below that of a reasonable person as him not paying attention to the road resulted in an injured Vera. The court will assess whether the negligent act was the most likely cause of the claimant's injuries, based on the balance of probabilities. There is an over 50% chance that Jack's negligence was the cause therefore it is to be treated as the 100% factual cause, meaning this specific injury i.e. the broken leg is actionable. …show more content…
The facts concerning Vera indicate there is a case of cumulative causes , where it is accepted that her leg injury was caused by Jack's breach of duty, but the 'but for' test is not to be used in the case of her arm injury.
This is an issue of material contribution , as the cause of the injury is one of different factors. The problem lies in the presence of Vera's rare bone condition and her leg being prone to give way. There is enough medical certainty to establish that the injury would still have occurred, meaning the defendant's actions were not more than negligible and so Jack is not liable for the claimant's broken
arm.
In PC Webster's first claim against Sally, the 'but for' test can successfully be applied, as there is a direct causal link between Sally's reckless driving and his spinal injury. This proves a duty of care was owed and makes the defendant liable for breach of duty and the corresponding damages. Regarding his paralysis, he may have suffered being shot through non-negligent means, especially since he used to be a police officer- although it is to be considered that his initial spinal injury may increase the risk of paralysis. This ties in with the scenario being a cumulative cause, as PC Webster being shot is not legally too remote, making both his claims successful.
Even in the case of this cumulative cause it is very difficult to prove that ‘but for’ the defendant’s negligence, Vera would not have broken her arm, especially seeing as she is already prone to do so. Furthermore, the was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of Vera falling off a ladder with a bad leg. Conversely, regarding PC Webster, the defendant is liable for both injuries sustained as they had consecutive causes.
Firstly, the 'but for' test is to be applied, in which the courts ask: 'but for the defendant's action, would the damage have occurred?' The courts have accepted that drivers automatically owes a duty of care to every other road user , including pedestrians. Jack's standards have fallen below that of a reasonable person as him not paying attention to the road resulted in an injured Vera. The court will assess whether the negligent act was the most likely cause of the claimant's injuries, based on the balance of probabilities. There is an over 50% chance that Jack's negligence was the cause therefore it is to be treated as the 100% factual cause, meaning this specific injury i.e. the broken leg is actionable. …show more content…
The facts concerning Vera indicate there is a case of cumulative causes , where it is accepted that her leg injury was caused by Jack's breach of duty, but the 'but for' test is not to be used in the case of her arm injury.
This is an issue of material contribution , as the cause of the injury is one of different factors. The problem lies in the presence of Vera's rare bone condition and her leg being prone to give way. There is enough medical certainty to establish that the injury would still have occurred, meaning the defendant's actions were not more than negligible and so Jack is not liable for the claimant's broken
arm.
In PC Webster's first claim against Sally, the 'but for' test can successfully be applied, as there is a direct causal link between Sally's reckless driving and his spinal injury. This proves a duty of care was owed and makes the defendant liable for breach of duty and the corresponding damages. Regarding his paralysis, he may have suffered being shot through non-negligent means, especially since he used to be a police officer- although it is to be considered that his initial spinal injury may increase the risk of paralysis. This ties in with the scenario being a cumulative cause, as PC Webster being shot is not legally too remote, making both his claims successful.
Even in the case of this cumulative cause it is very difficult to prove that ‘but for’ the defendant’s negligence, Vera would not have broken her arm, especially seeing as she is already prone to do so. Furthermore, the was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of Vera falling off a ladder with a bad leg. Conversely, regarding PC Webster, the defendant is liable for both injuries sustained as they had consecutive causes.