Causation in negligence Watch

Joe1882
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
"In negligence law, the doctrine of legal causation confers too much discretion on judges.

Discuss"

Really struggling with this... any help would be greatly appreciated. ive got my word count and i dont even think ive answered the question properly yet....
0
reply
User947387
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by Joe1882)
"In negligence law, the doctrine of legal causation confers too much discretion on judges.

Discuss"

Really struggling with this... any help would be greatly appreciated. ive got my word count and i dont even think ive answered the question properly yet....
Is this delict or tort?
0
reply
Joe1882
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by apronedsamurai)
Is this delict or tort?
Sorry its tort
0
reply
User947387
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Joe1882)
Sorry its tort
Well I would be inclined to say no.

There is the duty of care owed to neighbours a la Donague vs Stevenson (1932)

We have the doctrine of causa sine qua non, and causation; novus actus interveniens

We have stepney vs hackney borough council case; all of which provide the framework for the determination of culpablity. But given that they are doctrines that have formed part of the res judicia, one could argue that they are limiting on the power of judges rather than expanding.

You may also wish to consider judicial censure, discretion and ultra vires actions, with a slant to natural justice, and malfeasance (although that would be more of a lemon on the gin and tonic).

Just my 2 pennies!
0
reply
yastyb
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Joe1882)
"In negligence law, the doctrine of legal causation confers too much discretion on judges.

Discuss"

Really struggling with this... any help would be greatly appreciated. ive got my word count and i dont even think ive answered the question properly yet....
Really interesting question!

I believe it hinges on the judges' extension of the but/for test in order to mitigate its harshness and to introduce, to a certain extent, as the person mentioned above, a sense of justice in the law.

See Fairchild/McGhee exception (and other cases under the exception)

See Hotson and Gregg v Scott (dissent by lord nicholls)

Good luck!
0
reply
Mimir
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by apronedsamurai)
Well I would be inclined to say no.

Just my 2 pennies
I agree with the Nobel Lord.

Make sure you cover Professional/Clinical Negligence if you've already studied that. The case of Bolam and Bolithe (spelling?) will help with regard to causation in professional negligence.

To reduce your word count, don't waffle, and simply apply the cases straight to the essay (don't go stating the facts, just the precedent the case developed).
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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

University open days

  • Cardiff University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 27 Mar '19
  • University of Portsmouth
    Postgraduate and Part-Time Open Evenings Postgraduate
    Wed, 27 Mar '19
  • Middlesex University London
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Wed, 27 Mar '19

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (184)
22.66%
Before I was 12 (281)
34.61%
13 (132)
16.26%
14 (98)
12.07%
15 (53)
6.53%
16 (29)
3.57%
17 (9)
1.11%
18 (8)
0.99%
Between the ages of 19 - 25 (13)
1.6%
Over 25 (5)
0.62%

Watched Threads

View All