Atiyah’s Accidents, Compensation and the Law (6th ed, 1999, by Cane), Ch. 5

Weir, Part I, chs 4 & 5.

Compare Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 with Jobling v United Dairies [1981] 2 All ER 752

**Hotson v East Berks AHA [1987] 2 All ER 909

**Wilsher v Essex AHA [1988] 1 All ER 871 (compare McGhee v NCB [1973] 1 WLR 1, esp. Wilberforce)

Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 4 All ER 907

*South Australia Asset Management v York Montague [1996] 3 All ER 365, HL

*Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 4 All ER 771, HL

Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) Ltd [2000] 3 All ER 421

**Stapleton, 104 LQR 213, 389 (NB important article in two parts)

Honoré, Responsibility and Fault (Hart, 1999), Introduction (Useful summary of Hart & Honoré’s ideas)

Stapleton [1988] OxJLS 111 (Book review of Hart and Honoré criticizing their ideas)

Fleming 68 Canadian Bar Review 661, postscript in 70 Can BR 136 (probabilistic causation)

**Wagon Mound (1) [1961] AC 388

Wagon Mound (2) [1967] 1 AC 617

*Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837

Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 3 All ER 409, HL (*esp Hoffmann)

Compare Doughty v Turner [1964] 1 QB 518 with Tremain v Pike [1969] 1 WLR 1556

Muirhead v ITS [1986] QB 507 at 531-533

*Smith v Leach Brain [1962] 2 QB 405

*Page v Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 (NB Goff’s attack in White/ Frost [1998] 3 WLR 1509)

Compare Liesbosch [1933] AC 448 with Dodd v Canterbury CC [1980] 1 All ER 928

Meah v McCreamer [1986] 1 All ER 943

Pritchard v Cobden [1987] 1 All ER 300

Compare Wieland v Cyril Lord [1969] 3 All ER 1006 with McKew v Holland [1969] 3 All ER 1621

Doyle v Olby [1969] 2 QB 158 (fraud) [NB cross-reference Misrepresentation Act 1967 s. 2(1)]

Smith New Court v Scrimgeour Vickers [1996] 4 All ER 769 (fraud)

Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283 (headnote, defamation)

*Cambridge Water v Easter Counties Leather [1994] 1 All ER 53

*Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star [1995] 2 All ER 769 at 841f

*Cartwright, "Remoteness of Damage in Contract and Tort: A Reconsideration" (1996) 55 Camb LJ 488

B. Defences (Reconsider notes from Week 1.)

*Winfield & Jolowicz, Ch. 21 (short!)

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

*Winfield & Jolowicz, pp. 862-866

*Baker v Hopkins [1959] 1 WLR 966

Ogwo v Taylor [1988] AC 431

*White v Chief Constable for South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509, HL

Chadwick v BRB [1967] 2 All ER 945

Harrison v British Railways [1981] 3 All ER 679

1988 "That, in an action for negligence, only foreseeable harm is recoverable, is a doctrine which possesses many attractions, real or apparent, in particular those of consistency, simplicity and fairness." (Hart & Honoré). Discuss

1990 "Decisions since 1961 have shown that the principle in The Wagon Mound (1) has itself proved to be a source of considerable uncertainty." Discuss

1992 "Illegality is the defence on which the law falls back when other defences cannot deliver the sensible result. It is not surprising, therefore, that it lacks a coherent formulation." Discuss.

1993 Critically evaluate the way in which the law of negligence currently sees the relationship between causation and remoteness of damage.

1994 To what extent are the rules relating to the defences of illegality and volenti vague, and how, if at all, could they be improved in this respect?

1999 "The truth is that all these three – duty, remoteness and causation – are all devices by which the courts limit the range of liability for negligence… All these devices are useful in their way. But ultimately it is a question of policy for the judges to decide" (Lamb v Camden L.B.C (1981), per Lord Denning M.R.). Discuss.

1995 Crofton Hospital is a NHS Trust Hospital. It finds that it has insufficient funds to keep open a full accident and emergency service. It does, however, retain a scaled down service staffed by one junior doctor, Philip.

Frank, who is 25, is brought to the hospital after having been carelessly injured in a pub by Jim. Philip examines him and believes that his injuries are merely external. In fact Frank has serious internal injuries to his kidney and liver. Philip attends to the external injuries and advises Frank to return home and rest. In fact Frank goes to a different pub where he slips down some stairs as a result of the carelessness of Fred, the landlord. His liver, but not his kidney, is injured more seriously in this second incident. Frank’s liver was, however, already in a poor state due to his excessive drinking, and there is a strong possibility that he would not have lived beyond thirty.

Anne comes to the hospital having slipped down the stairs at home and broken her arm. This is set incorrectly by Philip. Anne also has a trapped nerve after the fall. Medical opinion differs as to whether this would have occured had the arm been correctly set. The dominant view is that there would have been a 40% chance of a trapped nerve occurring even if the bone had been correctly set. All doctors do however agree that the precise causes of trapped nerves are difficult to determine and that it may have been the result of a variety of factors which were not related to the fall at all. Advise the parties.