Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "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....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by apronedsamurai)
    Is this delict or tort?
    Sorry its tort
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    PS Reviewer
    (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).
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.