4152024
Description
Mind Map by joti Zandu, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by joti Zandu
about 9 years ago
|
|
But for test
- Introduction (250w)
- Brief overview of topic
- The 'but for' test (Definition
- Within this essay i will highlight the strengths and
weaknesses of the 'but for' test....
- Barnett v Kensington &
Chelsea Management
Committee (1969)
- Brief overview of topic
- Paragraph one (300w)
- Strength
- cases
- McGee v National Coal Board [1973]
- McGee v National Coal Board [1973]
- Common Sense
- Eggshell skulls - 'The tortfeasor
must take his victim as he finds
him' Read more at Law Teacher - pg 271 Horsey
- Eggshell skulls - 'The tortfeasor
must take his victim as he finds
him' Read more at Law Teacher - pg 271 Horsey
- cases
- Weakness
- Cases
- Mc Williams v Sir William Arrol (1962)
- Mc Williams v Sir William Arrol (1962)
- Involves an element of guess work
- Cases
- Conclusion
- Journal
- Statute
- Strength
- Paragraph two (300w)
- Strength
- cases
- - Fairchild v Glenhaven [2002] - Wilsher v Essex AHA [1988]
- Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [1997] - Nyang
v G4S Care & Justice Services Ltd & Ors [2013]
- HOWEVER: Compensation Act 2006 -
Holtby - Pg 255 Horsey
- - Fairchild v Glenhaven [2002] - Wilsher v Essex AHA [1988]
- Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [1997] - Nyang
v G4S Care & Justice Services Ltd & Ors [2013]
- Established on a
balance of
probabilities
- HOWEVER: Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw - "He
did not have to demonstrate on the balance of
probabilities that the guilty dust was the sole cause of
the disease." Material Contribution to harm
- HOWEVER: Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw - "He
did not have to demonstrate on the balance of
probabilities that the guilty dust was the sole cause of
the disease." Material Contribution to harm
- cases
- Conclusion
- Weakness
- Cases
- Hotson v East Berkshire
Area Health Authority
[1987] Gregg v Scott (2005) -
see baroness Hale’s
explanation - pg 263 Horsey
- Hotson v East Berkshire
Area Health Authority
[1987] Gregg v Scott (2005) -
see baroness Hale’s
explanation - pg 263 Horsey
- Indeterminate causes (more than one
cause) / loss of chance
- HENCE WHY (LINK BACK): Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea Management
Committee [1969] - The hospital was not liable as the doctor's failure to
examine the patient did not cause his death. Introduced the 'but for' test ie
would the result have occurred but for the act or omission of the
defendant? If yes, the defendant is not liable. Cook v Lewis
- Lord Reid “A man us not compensated for
the physical injury he is compensated for
the loss which he suffers as a result of that
injury.” Read more at Law Teacher:
- Lord Reid “A man us not compensated for
the physical injury he is compensated for
the loss which he suffers as a result of that
injury.” Read more at Law Teacher:
- Sindell v Abbot Laboratories [1980] - pg 260 Horsey
- HENCE WHY (LINK BACK): Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea Management
Committee [1969] - The hospital was not liable as the doctor's failure to
examine the patient did not cause his death. Introduced the 'but for' test ie
would the result have occurred but for the act or omission of the
defendant? If yes, the defendant is not liable. Cook v Lewis
- Cases
- Journal
- Statute
- Strength
- Paragraph three (300w)
- Strength
- Cases
- Cases
- Conclusion
- Weakness
- Cases
- Bolitho Wright v Cambridge Medical
Group (2011) - pg 265 Horsey
- Bolitho Wright v Cambridge Medical
Group (2011) - pg 265 Horsey
- Omissions
- Cases
- Journal
- Statute
- Strength
- Conclusion (250w)
- In my submission/ I submit that.... with support from legal authority
- Tie up arguments
- what affect does it have on
the law, on future cases
- Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health
Board [2015] - Pg 259 Horsey
- Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health
Board [2015] - Pg 259 Horsey
- In my submission/ I submit that.... with support from legal authority
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.