It has been suggested in the past that the test in [case]was particularly suited to cases involving industrial disease, whereas the approach in Wilsher was more relevant to medical negligence cases. However, the recent case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883 shows that this simplistic analysis is not always appropriate. The case involved negligent medical treatment. The medical experts were unable to say whether the negligent treatment was on the balance of probabilities the cause of the claimant’s cardiac arrest and brain damage. They were able to determine, however, that the brain damage was caused by the negligence working together with the natural progression of the claimant’s condition (i.e. factors working together cumulatively rather than independently). The Court of Appeal therefore applied the Bonnington test and concluded that factual causation was satisfied because the negligence materially contributed to the risk.
Answer
Bonnington Castings and McGhee
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
It has been suggested in the past that the test in [case]was particularly suited to cases involving industrial disease, whereas the approach in Wilsher was more relevant to medical negligence cases. However, the recent case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883 shows that this simplistic analysis is not always appropriate. The case involved negligent medical treatment. The medical experts were unable to say whether the negligent treatment was on the balance of probabilities the cause of the claimant’s cardiac arrest and brain damage. They were able to determine, however, that the brain damage was caused by the negligence working together with the natural progression of the claimant’s condition (i.e. factors working together cumulatively rather than independently). The Court of Appeal therefore applied the Bonnington test and concluded that factual causation was satisfied because the negligence materially contributed to the risk.
Answer
?
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
It has been suggested in the past that the test in [case]was particularly suited to cases involving industrial disease, whereas the approach in Wilsher was more relevant to medical negligence cases. However, the recent case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883 shows that this simplistic analysis is not always appropriate. The case involved negligent medical treatment. The medical experts were unable to say whether the negligent treatment was on the balance of probabilities the cause of the claimant’s cardiac arrest and brain damage. They were able to determine, however, that the brain damage was caused by the negligence working together with the natural progression of the claimant’s condition (i.e. factors working together cumulatively rather than independently). The Court of Appeal therefore applied the Bonnington test and concluded that factual causation was satisfied because the negligence materially contributed to the risk.
Answer
Bonnington Castings and McGhee
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it It has been suggested in the past that the test in Bonnington Castings and McGhee was particularly suited to cases involving industrial disease, whereas the approach in Wilsher was more relevant to medical negligence cases. However, the recent case of Bailey v Mini
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.