Need Serious Help for Tort/Contract Law Exam Question

Hey Guys I apologize for being a pain, although i have a question in relation to my exam, which i simply have no idea how to construct. I appreciate if you can give me even the slightest amount of guidance.

Critically analyse the Mesothelioma exception to the normal rule of 'but for' in negligence causation?

Reply 1

TheDefiniteArticle

20

The key case is Fairchild v Glenhaven. FWIW this question has nothing to do with contract.

Reply 2

lbsjmcca

OP

2

I am fully aware of that, although at my university the exam is simply noted as Obligations B. The content consists of both contract and tort questions.

Thanks for your reply, the comparison to the 'But For' test seems to be my downfall, ofcourse it's relevant to mention the 'balance of propabilities', and Multiple possible cause?

I appreciate your time to respond

Reply 3

lbsjmcca

OP

2

Original post by TheDefiniteArticle

The key case is Fairchild v Glenhaven. FWIW this question has nothing to do with contract.

I am fully aware of that, although at my university the exam is simply noted as Obligations B. The content consists of both contract and tort questions.

Thanks for your reply, the comparison to the 'But For' test seems to be my downfall, ofcourse it's relevant to mention the 'balance of propabilities', and Multiple possible cause?

I appreciate your time to respond

Reply 4

llb008

You are from John Moores arent you? I am struggling with the same question!!!

Reply 5

TheDefiniteArticle

20

Original post by lbsjmcca

I am fully aware of that, although at my university the exam is simply noted as Obligations B. The content consists of both contract and tort questions.

Thanks for your reply, the comparison to the 'But For' test seems to be my downfall, ofcourse it's relevant to mention the 'balance of propabilities', and Multiple possible cause?

I appreciate your time to respond

I haven't looked at any tort stuff in a year and I didn't revise this for collections so I can't help you specifically but I remember McBride and Bagshaw's textbook has a really good discussion of the issue. Obviously re-reading the series of cases will also be useful.

Reply 6

lbsjmcca

OP

2

Original post by llb008

You are from John Moores arent you? I am struggling with the same question!!!

Yes I am, How did you get on with your exam? I hope all went well for you?

Reply 7

vhowkins

9

Original post by lbsjmcca

Hey Guys I apologize for being a pain, although i have a question in relation to my exam, which i simply have no idea how to construct. I appreciate if you can give me even the slightest amount of guidance.

Critically analyse the Mesothelioma exception to the normal rule of 'but for' in negligence causation?

The 'but for' test in causation in fact and this means that the claimant would not have suffered the damage but for the defendant's negligence. The case I used is Barnett as the men would have died anyway. Here I would discuss the problems of the test - can only operate on single causes and lack of medical knowledge. The balance of probabilities/'loss of a chance' is important too. Here I would use Hotson and Gregg v Scott.
I would then go on to talk about 'materially increasing the risk'. Here was the cases of McGhee (washing facilities) and Fairchild (3 employers) - talk about how judges were originally looking for the 'guilty fibre' and had the mindset used for criminal law and how the House of Lords overlooked this and decided that all three should be liable as it is likely that all of them somehow contributed. This is a policy reason and you may wish to give a sentence on what policy is - the courts wanted to compensate the victim and deter wrongdoing.

I don't know if this helped in any way but Fairchild is a must for any essay on causation.