In some situations a loss is known to have been caused by two or more factors operating together (A + B = loss). A case which illustrates this is Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613. The plaintiff claimed compensation in negligence from his employers for a respiratory disease. Whilst it was clear that the cause of the disease was exposure to dust at work, [...]. Some of the exposure was deemed to be a natural consequence of the work being carried out (and therefore non-tortious). Here the tortious and non-tortious factors operated cumulatively to produce the loss. The application of the ‘but for’ test, in this situation, is more complex than when dealing with independent causes. The plaintiff would not have suffered the loss but for the exposure to dust. It was impossible to tell, however, how much of the loss was caused by the tortious exposure to the dust and how much by the non-tortious exposure as they operated together. The House of Lords resolved the issue by introducing the material contribution test. If the defendant’s breach could be proved to have materially contributed to the plaintiff developing the disease then the defendant would be liable for all the loss.
Answer
only part of this exposure was due to the defendant’s breach of duty
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
In some situations a loss is known to have been caused by two or more factors operating together (A + B = loss). A case which illustrates this is Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613. The plaintiff claimed compensation in negligence from his employers for a respiratory disease. Whilst it was clear that the cause of the disease was exposure to dust at work, [...]. Some of the exposure was deemed to be a natural consequence of the work being carried out (and therefore non-tortious). Here the tortious and non-tortious factors operated cumulatively to produce the loss. The application of the ‘but for’ test, in this situation, is more complex than when dealing with independent causes. The plaintiff would not have suffered the loss but for the exposure to dust. It was impossible to tell, however, how much of the loss was caused by the tortious exposure to the dust and how much by the non-tortious exposure as they operated together. The House of Lords resolved the issue by introducing the material contribution test. If the defendant’s breach could be proved to have materially contributed to the plaintiff developing the disease then the defendant would be liable for all the loss.
Answer
?
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
In some situations a loss is known to have been caused by two or more factors operating together (A + B = loss). A case which illustrates this is Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613. The plaintiff claimed compensation in negligence from his employers for a respiratory disease. Whilst it was clear that the cause of the disease was exposure to dust at work, [...]. Some of the exposure was deemed to be a natural consequence of the work being carried out (and therefore non-tortious). Here the tortious and non-tortious factors operated cumulatively to produce the loss. The application of the ‘but for’ test, in this situation, is more complex than when dealing with independent causes. The plaintiff would not have suffered the loss but for the exposure to dust. It was impossible to tell, however, how much of the loss was caused by the tortious exposure to the dust and how much by the non-tortious exposure as they operated together. The House of Lords resolved the issue by introducing the material contribution test. If the defendant’s breach could be proved to have materially contributed to the plaintiff developing the disease then the defendant would be liable for all the loss.
Answer
only part of this exposure was due to the defendant’s breach of duty
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it illustrates this is Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613. The plaintiff claimed compensation in negligence from his employers for a respiratory disease. Whilst it was clear that the cause of the disease was exposure to dust at work, <span>only part of this exposure was due to the defendant’s breach of duty. Some of the exposure was deemed to be a natural consequence of the work being carried out (and therefore non-tortious). Here the tortious and non-tortious factors operated cumulative
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.