Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    3 Collaborate - Workshop Slides L7

    Uploaded by

    Jackal Chau
    This document provides an agenda for Workshop Three which focuses on causation in negligence claims. The learning objectives are to learn about factual and legal causation, apply the knowledge to scenarios, consider how causation can be assessed through multiple choice questions, and practice communication skills. The workshop activities include peer assessment of case summaries on factual causation, an exercise applying knowledge of negligent augmentation of injury (NAI), group discussions on causation, and further analysis of causation cases. Key cases to be discussed include Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee, Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw, and McGhee v National Coal Board, which relate to the "but for" test and material contribution test for factual causation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    3 Collaborate - Workshop Slides L7

    Uploaded by

    Jackal Chau
    98 views19 pages
    This document provides an agenda for Workshop Three which focuses on causation in negligence claims. The learning objectives are to learn about factual and legal causation, apply the knowledge to scenarios, consider how causation can be assessed through multiple choice questions, and practice communication skills. The workshop activities include peer assessment of case summaries on factual causation, an exercise applying knowledge of negligent augmentation of injury (NAI), group discussions on causation, and further analysis of causation cases. Key cases to be discussed include Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee, Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw, and McGhee v National Coal Board, which relate to the "but for" test and material contribution test for factual causation

    Original Description:

    law material

    Original Title

    3 Collaborate - workshop slides L7

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides an agenda for Workshop Three which focuses on causation in negligence claims. The learning objectives are to learn about factual and legal causation, apply the knowledge to scenarios, consider how causation can be assessed through multiple choice questions, and practice communication skills. The workshop activities include peer assessment of case summaries on factual causation, an exercise applying knowledge of negligent augmentation of injury (NAI), group discussions on causation, and further analysis of causation cases. Key cases to be discussed include Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee, Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw, and McGhee v National Coal Board, which relate to the "but for" test and material contribution test for factual causation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    98 views19 pages

    3 Collaborate - Workshop Slides L7

    Uploaded by

    Jackal Chau
    This document provides an agenda for Workshop Three which focuses on causation in negligence claims. The learning objectives are to learn about factual and legal causation, apply the knowledge to scenarios, consider how causation can be assessed through multiple choice questions, and practice communication skills. The workshop activities include peer assessment of case summaries on factual causation, an exercise applying knowledge of negligent augmentation of injury (NAI), group discussions on causation, and further analysis of causation cases. Key cases to be discussed include Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee, Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw, and McGhee v National Coal Board, which relate to the "but for" test and material contribution test for factual causation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 19

    WORKSHOP THREE

    General Negligence: Causation


    General Negligence

    • Parties
    • Tort
    • Loss
    • Duty
    • Breach
    • Causation
    • Remoteness
    • Defences
    Workshop three

    1: Negligence: introduction and duty of Learning objectives


    care 1. Learn about factual and legal
    2: Negligence: breach of duty causation in the context of the tort of
    general negligence;
    3: Negligence: causation
    2. Apply what you have learned to a
    4: Negligence: remoteness and defences
    variety of realistic scenarios;
    5: Vicarious liability and employers’
    3. Consider how this knowledge can be
    primary liability in negligence
    assessed by way of multiple-choice
    6: Special types of loss in negligence: questions and practice such MCQs;
    nervous shock and
    7: Special types of loss in negligence: pure 4. Practice and enhance your oral and
    economic loss written communication skills.
    8: Nuisance
    9: Occupiers’ liability
    Pervasive Skills

    Team work: worked in teams to produce internal knowhow on five key cases in relation
    to factual causation.
     
    Case analysis: you were required to find, read and analyse one of five key factual
    causation cases.
     
    Oral communication / presentation skills: presenting legal arguments on legal
    causation.
     
    Written communication skills: you were required to provide a succinct explanation of a
    key case in relation to factual causation and to provide a succinct written review of
    whether factual causation is satisfied in the claims against Sophia, the ambulance and
    the hospital.
    Structure

    • Introduction (10 minutes)


    • Activity 1: Peer assessment of case summaries (LO1 and LO4) (35 minutes)
    • Activity 2: Exercise on the law of NAI (LO1 and LO4) (15 minutes)
    • Activity 3: Group discussion of factual and legal causation (LO1 and LO2) (25 minutes)
    • Activity 4: Further analysis of factual and legal causation (LO1 and LO2) (20 minutes)
    • Conclude
    Activity 1

    • Peer Assessment of factual causation case summaries


    • 20 minutes peer assessment
    • 15 minutes group discussion
    Criteria 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70 + (Distinction)
    (Borderline Fail) (Pass) (Merit)
    Demonstrating A Limited knowledge A satisfactory, A good, An excellent,
    knowledge and base and / or comprehensive and comprehensive and comprehensive and
    conceptual systematic systematic systematic
    understanding understanding of the knowledge base and knowledge base and knowledge base and
    of relevant legal key or fundamentally conceptual conceptual conceptual
    principles and relevant legal principles understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the
    provisions and provisions. key or fundamentally key or fundamentally key or fundamentally
    relevant legal relevant legal relevant legal
    Significant evidence of principles and principles and principles and
    irrelevant content, provisions. provisions…. provisions….
    errors and / or Limited irrelevant No or highly limited
    omissions that are content, errors and / Highly limited irrelevant content,
    major and / or or omissions that are irrelevant content, errors and / or
    significant in the overall minor and / or errors and / or omissions that are
    context. insignificant in the omissions that are very minor or
    overall context. minor or insignificant insignificant in the
    Articulation of the Articulation of the in the overall context. overall context.
    relevant law is unclear, relevant law in a way Articulation of the
    inaccurate, incomplete, that is not wholly Articulation of the relevant law is clear,
    and / or predominantly imitative and / or relevant law is clear accurate and
    imitative and / or descriptive, and accurate, systematic,
    descriptive, demonstrating demonstrating good demonstrating
    demonstrating limited satisfactory understanding. excellent
    understanding.. understanding.. understanding..
    Criteria 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70 +
    Effectively and Limited Satisfactory Good interpersonal Excellent
    appropriately interpersonal skills interpersonal and and interpersonal and
    communicating which are communication communication communication
    legal information in developed, skills which are skills which are skills which are
    different situations adapted and generally well-developed, very well-
    and to different refined to suit a developed, adapted and developed,
    audiences. basic range of adapted and refined to suit an adapted and
    situations and refined to suit an appropriately wide refined to suit an
    audiences. appropriate range range of situations appropriately wide
    of situations and and audiences. range of situations
    Communication is audiences. and audiences.
    limited; not Communication is
    generally clear, Satisfactory consistently clear, Communication is
    engaging, communication engaging, very clear,
    persuasive and/or that is generally persuasive and engaging, highly
    well structured. clear, engaging, well structured persuasive and
    persuasive and well structured.
    well structured.
    Activity 1
    Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee:

    • Mr Barnett attended A&E and was told to go home and see his doctor. Five hours
    later he died of arsenic poisoning.
    • Even if admitted to hospital five hours earlier, there was little or no chance that the
    antidote would have been administered on time.
    • But for the defendant’s breach (failing to examine Mr Barnett), Mr Barnett would have
    died anyway on the balance of probabilities.
    • A simple illustration of the ‘but for’ test.
    • ‘But for’ test is always the starting point for factual causation.
    Activity 1
    Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw:

    • During employment, the claimant was exposed to silica dust by the defendant.
    • Part of this dust was tortious and part was ‘innocent’. Both sources together
    contributed to the claimant contracting pneumoconiosis.
    • But for test failed - claimant could not prove on the balance of probabilities that
    without the tortious dust he would not have suffered pneumoconiosis.
    • Where two or more sources contribute to the claimant’s loss and medical science
    cannot establish which source was the most significant cause, apply the material
    contribution test.
    • Claimant was able to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tortious dust made
    a more than negligible contribution to his pneumoconiosis.

     
     
    Activity 1
    McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 (HL):
    • During employment, the claimant was exposed to brick dust by the defendant and
    suffered dermatitis.
    • Part of this dust was tortious, and part was ‘innocent’.
    • But for test failed - claimant could not prove on the balance of probabilities that
    without the tortious dust he would not have suffered dermatitis.
    • Material contribution test failed – claimant could not prove on the balance of
    probabilities that the tortious dust made a more than negligible contribution to his
    dermatitis. The dermatitis could have been caused by a single exposure to brick dust.
    • However, the claimant could prove that the longer the dust was on his skin, the
    greater the risk of contracting dermatitis.
    • The House of Lords established the material increase in risk test which the claimant
    could satisfy – the tortious dust materially increased his risk of contracting dermatitis.
    • Note that currently this test is confined to industrial disease single agency cases
    (namely mesothelioma and lung cancer caused by asbestos).
    Activity 1
    Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority:

    • Hospital negligently administered excess oxygen to premature baby.


    • The baby developed an incurable eye condition (‘RLF’). The condition could have been
    caused by the excess oxygen OR by four other non-tortious factors.
    • Five factors were not operating together. One factor solely responsible.
    • Material increase in risk test did not apply as more than one ‘agent’.
    • But for test was applied and failed – there was no way of showing on the balance of
    probabilities that but for the defendant’s breach, the baby would not have suffered RLF.
    • There was only a 20% chance that the breach caused the loss.
    Activity 2
    Legal Causation

    Act of God
    • Exceptional natural event
    • Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government

    Act of Claimant
    • Highly unreasonable
    • McKew v Holland; Wieland v Cyril; Spencer v Wincanton

    Act of Third Party


    • Highly unforeseeable (very unlikely to happen as a result of the breach)
    • Knightley v Johns
    • Medical Negligence – so gross and egregious as to be unforeseeable (Robinson v PO)
    Activity 3
    Which of the claims would potentially satisfy the ‘but for’ test?

    A. Sophia Jennings
    B. Ambulance Trust
    C. Dr Garcia 

    D. Answer: A – Sophia Jennings 

    But for Sophia’s breach (sleeping pills/speeding/swerving), Ben would not have suffered
    whiplash, a slipped disc or paralysis at that time and in that way (Barnett v Chelsea and
    Kensington).  

    Alternative argument? 
    Activity 3
    Parties: Ben Wilkins v Sophia Jennings
    Tort: General Negligence
    Loss: Personal Injury, Property Damage and CEL
    Duty: Workshop 1
    Breach: Workshop 2
    Factual Causation: previous slide
    Legal Causation:
    • Act of third party – Kalvinder – highly unforeseeable? (Knightley v Johns)
    • Act of third party – Ambulance – highly unforeseeable? (Knightley v Johns)
    • Medical Negligence – Dr Garcia – so gross and egregious as to be unforeseeable?
    (Robinson v PO)
    Activity 4
    Parties: Ben Wilkins v Northern Ambulance Service NHS Trust
    Tort: General Negligence
    Loss: Personal Injury and CEL
    Duty: Workshop 1
    Breach: Workshop 2
    Factual Causation:
    • But for the ambulance’s breach, would Ben have suffered his slipped disc and paralysis
    at that time and in that way on the bop? (Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC)
    • Impossible to answer.
    • Collision, Kalvinder and delay were all capable of contributing to the losses.
    • Material contribution test (Bonnington v Wardlaw) – delay made a more than
    negligible contribution to claimant’s loss on the bop.
    Legal Causation:
    • Medical Negligence – Dr Garcia – so gross and egregious as to be unforeseeable?
    (Robinson v PO)
    Activity 4
    Parties: Ben Wilkins v Dr Garcia 
    Tort: Medical Negligence 
    Loss: Personal Injury and CEL
    Duty: Workshop 1
    Breach: Workshop 2
    Factual Causation: 
    • But for Dr Garcia’s breach, would Ben have suffered paralysis at that time and in that
    way on the bop? (Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC). Impossible to answer. 
    • Collision, Kalvinder, delay and operation were all capable of contributing to the
    losses. 
    • Material contribution test (Bonnington v Wardlaw) – operation made a more than
    negligible contribution to claimant’s loss on the bop. 
    • Damages divided between the three defendants that contributed to Ben’s paralysis.
    Legal Causation:
    • No NAI on the facts given. 
    Conclusion

    Achieved learning objectives? This week was…


    1. Learn about factual and legal 3: Causation
    causation in the context of the tort of
    general negligence; Next week…
    2. Apply what you have learned to a 4: Remoteness and defences
    variety of realistic scenarios;
    3. Consider how this knowledge can be
    assessed by way of multiple-choice
    questions and practice such MCQs;
    and
    4. Practice and enhance your oral and
    written communication skills.
    Consolidation

    Consolidation exercises:
    1. Review the supplemental guidance in relation to the case summaries.
    2. Three additional questions – review your answers using the supplemental guidance.
    3. Access and complete the assessment-level MCQs on the Hub.

    You might also like