The plaintiff was injured through the defendant’s negligence and was given an anti-tetanus injection, to which he proved allergic. This did not break the chain of causation as it was not regarded as ‘palpably wrong’ (and would not have been necessary had it not been for the defendant’s negligence in the first place). Moreover the negligent administration of the anti-tetanus injection was not a ‘but for’ cause of the claimant’s injury (since it would still have been administered even if the doctor had done an allergy test first) so it could not break the chain of causation.
Answer
Robinson v The Post Office [1974] 2 All ER 737
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
The plaintiff was injured through the defendant’s negligence and was given an anti-tetanus injection, to which he proved allergic. This did not break the chain of causation as it was not regarded as ‘palpably wrong’ (and would not have been necessary had it not been for the defendant’s negligence in the first place). Moreover the negligent administration of the anti-tetanus injection was not a ‘but for’ cause of the claimant’s injury (since it would still have been administered even if the doctor had done an allergy test first) so it could not break the chain of causation.
Answer
?
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
The plaintiff was injured through the defendant’s negligence and was given an anti-tetanus injection, to which he proved allergic. This did not break the chain of causation as it was not regarded as ‘palpably wrong’ (and would not have been necessary had it not been for the defendant’s negligence in the first place). Moreover the negligent administration of the anti-tetanus injection was not a ‘but for’ cause of the claimant’s injury (since it would still have been administered even if the doctor had done an allergy test first) so it could not break the chain of causation.
Answer
Robinson v The Post Office [1974] 2 All ER 737
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In Robinson v The Post Office [1974] 2 All ER 737 the plaintiff was injured through the defendant’s negligence and was given an anti-tetanus injection, to which he proved allergic. This did not break the chain of causation as it was n
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.