Search for notes by fellow students, in your own course and all over the country.
Browse our notes for titles which look like what you need, you can preview any of the notes via a sample of the contents. After you're happy these are the notes you're after simply pop them into your shopping cart.
Document Preview
Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above
THE LAW OF TORT
The "egg shell" rule
1
...
2
...
Conversely, of course, a
defendant might be lucky, if the plaintiff had an exceptionally strong skull or strong
bones, or strong heart, so that the plaintiff suffered a lesser degree or extent of harm
than would have been caused by others
...
Refer to the following cases:
-Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] 2 QB 405
...
It seems clear that, at least as regards physical harm, provided it was of a kind that
was reasonably foreseeable, the fact that it had a greater or lesser effect on the
plaintiff than was foreseeable does not protect the wrongdoer from liability
...
J 13/12/13©
Liesbosch Dredger v SS Edison [1933] AC 449)
EFFECTS OF SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF ANOTHER PERSON OR
THE PLAINTIFF: Novus Actus Interveniens
5
...
This is sometimes described by asking whether the
act is a novus actus or nova causa interveniens i
...
a new intervening act or new
intervening cause
...
In Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004 (Reading 6
...
I do not think that a mere foreseeable possibility is or should be sufficient
...
Certainly where the subsequent action of another person is illegal or careless or
wrongful it seem that it will normally render any resulting harm as too remote even if
it is reasonably foreseeable
...
"It would extend…liability…
beyond all reason", said Lord Denning MR in Lamb v Camden Borough Council
A
...
Note that: in Lamb v Camden Borough Council Lord Denning suggested that the
question of whether intervening conduct of another person should render the harm too
remote should be resolved by the judges as a matter of judicial policy, i
...
who as a
matter of policy, should be expected to have to do something to prevent or stop the
harm
...
Sometimes the act which intervenes after the negligence of the defendant and causes
another or additional harm to the plaintiff is an act of the plaintiff
...
McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621-Lord Reid said
at p1623:
In my view the law is clear
...
It is quite possible that in spite of all
reasonable care his leg may give way in circumstances such that as a result be sustains
further injury
...
But if the injured man acts unreasonably he cannot hold the defender
liable for injury caused by his own unreasonable conduct
...
The chain of causation has been broken and what fallens must be
regarded as caused by his own conduct and not by the defender’s fault or the disability
caused by it
...
J 13/12/13©
10
...
Eveleigh J said at p 1010-1011:
In the present case I am concerned with the extent of the harm suffered by the plaintiff as a
result of actionable injury
...
If necessary I think the plaintiff’s case can also be put against the defendant in
another way
...
11
...
It will be regarded as an error of judgment caused by
the defendant, and not remove the liability of the defendant
...
When his leg gave way the appellant
was in a very difficult situation
...
He
may have come to a wrong decision; he probably did
...
In an emergency it
is natural to try to do something to save oneself and I do not think that his trying to jump in
this emergency was so wrong that it could be said to be more than an error of judgment
...
J 13/12/13©
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
...
J 13/12/13©