Tort - Seminar 4 - Causation - BL101 by Claire Turner

claire43 — 2023-10-17 10:44:55 UTC

Link to Text Book

claire43 — 2023-10-17 10:45:01 UTC

Andy was driving his car whilst also using his mobile phone when he failed to notice that the traffic ahead of him had stopped at red traffic lights. He ran into the rear of Bhavna's car, causing a large dent in the back bumper, and whiplash injuries to her neck. In fact, Bhavna had reversed her car into a wall the previous week and the car was due to have a new back bumper fitted.

claire43 — 2023-10-17 10:45:07 UTC

Bhavna was taken to hospital for treatment for her neck injury, where Dr Carl injected her with the incorrect drug, causing permanent nerve damage to her neck. Bhavna also discovered that she had lost about 50% of the use of her left leg. The medical evidence indicated that this could have happened for one of two reasons; it could be because she was given the incorrect drug, but it does sometimes happen as a result of whiplash injuries, even where the correct treatment is given. Advise Bhavna as to her remedies in tort.

Claim 1 - Andy defendant; B claimant

claire43 — 2024-10-15 13:34:00 UTC

Issue - Damage to the car - negligence

Duty of care - Nettleship v Weston - duty to other roadusers

Breach - But for (Barnett v Chelsea). Consecutive breaches - Had the second tort had no effect given the continuing act of the first? (Performance Cars v Abraham). No liability in respect car bumper.

Claim 2 - Claimant B defendants - Dr Carl (NHS Trust), Andy

claire43 — 2024-10-15 13:35:23 UTC

Issue - Neck injury - negligence

Duty - Andys duty and breach established above.

Dr Carl - Wilsher - duty to patients

Breach - Bolam - reasonable doctor in that position have injected wrong drug - no.

Causation - Consecutive - '...if a surgeon, by lack of skill or failure in reasonable care, causes additional damage or aggravates an existing injury and so renders himself liable in damages, the reasonable conclusion must be that his intervention is a new cause' (Hogan v Benthick - Lord Normand)

Claim 3 - C - B, Defendants Andy and Dr Carl

claire43 — 2024-10-15 13:36:32 UTC

loss of use of the leg

Duty and breach as above

Cumulative - proof of causation as but for (Barnett) - does not apply.

Claimant - Material contribution to harm (Bonnington Castings v Wardlow; Bailey) - both contributed to the injury

Defence - All or nothing - Wilsher - more than 51% chance negligence led to her leg injury.