But for test

But for test

Introduction (250w)
1. Brief overview of topic
2. The 'but for' test (Definition
3. Within this essay i will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the 'but for' test....
4. Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea Management Committee (1969)
Paragraph one (300w)
1. Strength
  1. cases
    1. McGee v National Coal Board [1973]
  2. Common Sense
    1. Eggshell skulls - 'The tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds him' Read more at Law Teacher - pg 271 Horsey
2. Weakness
  1. Cases
    1. Mc Williams v Sir William Arrol (1962)
  2. Involves an element of guess work
3. Conclusion
4. Journal
5. Statute
Paragraph two (300w)
1. Strength
  1. cases
    1. - 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]
    2. HOWEVER: Compensation Act 2006 - Holtby - Pg 255 Horsey
  2. Established on a balance of probabilities
    1. 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
2. Conclusion
3. Weakness
  1. Cases
    1. Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] Gregg v Scott (2005) - see baroness Hale’s explanation - pg 263 Horsey
  2. Indeterminate causes (more than one cause) / loss of chance
    1. 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
      1. 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:
    2. Sindell v Abbot Laboratories [1980] - pg 260 Horsey
4. Journal
5. Statute
Paragraph three (300w)
1. Strength
  1. Cases
2. Conclusion
3. Weakness
  1. Cases
    1. Bolitho Wright v Cambridge Medical Group (2011) - pg 265 Horsey
  2. Omissions
4. Journal
5. Statute
Conclusion (250w)
1. In my submission/ I submit that.... with support from legal authority
2. Tie up arguments
3. what affect does it have on the law, on future cases
  1. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] - Pg 259 Horsey

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by joti Zandu almost 9 years ago