Tort Group Seminar 4 - Group FT111 by Claire Turner

Link to causation Prezi

claire43 — 2022-10-18 11:12:00 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. 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.

claire43 — 2022-10-18 11:12:08 UTC

Claim 1 - car

claire43 — 2025-10-14 14:37:24 UTC

Duty - existing precedent - Nettleship v Weston

Breach - Blyth v Birmingham - not met the standard of a reasonable driver as he was on his phone and jumped traffic light.

Causation - the second event of the crash had no effect given the continuing act of the first accident caused by her (Performance Cars v Abraham) - Andy is not liable for car damage.

Claim 2 - permanent neck damage

claire43 — 2025-10-14 14:37:47 UTC

Neck damage - whiplash jury first then incorrect drug injection.

Consecutive - break in the chain? Only if it causes ' causes additional damage or aggravates an existing injury' (per Normand LJ Hogan v Bentinck) - NHS Trust vicariously liable for Dr Carl would be liable for this injury as there is a break in the chain from Andy's liability

Claim - Lost 50% use of leg

claire43 — 2025-10-14 14:38:11 UTC

Indeterminate cause - no clear evidence as to the cause.

Proof of causation - Claimant rely on - Material contribution approach so that either Andy or NHS equally liable for the injury caused. (Bonington Castings v Wardlow)

Defence - will rely on the All or nothing approach (Wilsher; Hotson) - must prove that the cause was more than a 50% chance of causing the injury ie the leg injury. Facts state ' 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.' Unlikely to prove