Need Serious Help for Tort/Contract Law Exam Question

Watch
lbsjmcca
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
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?
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
The key case is Fairchild v Glenhaven. FWIW this question has nothing to do with contract.
0
reply
lbsjmcca
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
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
0
reply
lbsjmcca
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#4
(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
0
reply
llb008
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
You are from John Moores arent you? I am struggling with the same question!!!
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(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.
0
reply
lbsjmcca
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
(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?
0
reply
vhowkins
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(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.
0
reply
Wade-
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
Probably too late but you have to mention material increase in risk from McGhee also contrast with the judgement in Wilsher


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
tehforum
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
And critically analyse Lord Brown's comments re: but for test is a lost cause in Sienkiewicz v Grief
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What do you want most from university virtual open days and online events?

I want to be able to watch in my own time rather than turn up live (189)
29.3%
I want to hear more about the specifics of the course (106)
16.43%
I want to be able to dip in and dip out of lots of different sessions (58)
8.99%
I want to meet current students (54)
8.37%
I want to meet academics and the people that will be teaching me (51)
7.91%
I want to have a taster lecture or workshop to see what the teaching is like (128)
19.84%
My parents/guardians are more interested than me to be honest (38)
5.89%
Other things – I'll tell you in the thread (21)
3.26%

Watched Threads

View All