1. (# of deaths at II - # of deaths at stage I)/ # of deaths at stage II 2. Ex. Above (75%-61%)/ 75% = % of damages you get of the amount you would’ve gotten total 261) Hotson v. East Berkshire area Health 13 fell from tree and hospital failed to diagnose a condition that led to the deformation of his femur Court said hospital denied only 25% chance so he should recover 25% (but an appeal against this was allowed) Fall was sole cause of neurosis v. Group Liability (Market Share theory, see below) Substitute for can use this to assign liability – General conclusion: A particular will be cause in fact of another if (a) it can be described as part of a number of antecedent events culminate in the event under consideration and (b)the absence of this particular antecedent event would diminish the probability of the occurrence of the consequent event. If courts find this to stringent, then they will apply the of causation” by declaring that they are not concerned with “logic establishing the cause of an event but rather are concerned with discovering the cause or causes” of – “substantial that event. e. Proximate Cause i. direct test Polemnis ii. Foreseeability/scope of risk 1. Has to be the type of injury, but not the same method a. But see Doughty case for exception and method 2. Within the zone of danger 3. Liable even if injuries to greater extent (Lord Advocate) 4. have to be likely or probable to occur (just foreseeable, Wagon Mound II) Cases: (pg 271) Polemnis Workers on ship were offloading materials. They dropped a board which ignited benzene gas and destroyed ship. The could not have reasonably been anticipated, though damage to the ship could have. it has been once determined that there is evidence of negligence, the person guilty of it is equally liable for its “when consequences, whether he could have foreseen them or not” If an act is determined to be negligent, then the question of recovery of damages depends only on if they are the direct consequence of the act If whatever you did is the direct cause of something, you are liable no matter how unforeseeable it is. It doesn’t have to be foreseeable at all.
1. (# of deaths at II - # of deaths at stage I)/ # of deaths at stage II 2. Ex. Above (75%-61%)/ 75% = % of damages you get of the amount you would’ve gotten total Hotson v. East Berkshire area Health 261) 13 fell from tree and hospital failed to diagnose a condition that led to the deformation of his femur Court said hospital denied only 25% chance so he should recover 25% (but an appeal against this was allowed) Fall was sole cause of neurosis v. Group Liability (Market Share theory, see below) Substitute for – can use this to assign liability General conclusion: A particular will be cause in fact of another if (a) it can be described as part of a number of antecedent events culminate in the event under consideration and (b)the absence of this particular antecedent event would diminish the probability of the occurrence of the consequent event. If courts find this to stringent, then they will apply the “logic of causation” by declaring that they are not concerned with establishing the cause of an event – but rather are concerned with discovering the “substantial cause or causes” of that event. e. Proximate Cause i. direct test Polemnis ii. Foreseeability/scope of risk 1. Has to be the type of injury, but not the same method a. But see Doughty case for exception and method 2. Within the zone of danger 3. Liable even if injuries to greater extent (Lord Advocate) 4. have to be likely or probable to occur (just foreseeable, Wagon Mound II) Cases: Polemnis (pg 271) Workers on ship were offloading materials. They dropped a board which ignited benzene gas and destroyed ship. The could not have reasonably been anticipated, though damage to the ship could have. “when it has been once determined that there is evidence of negligence, the person guilty of it is equally liable for its consequences, whether he could have foreseen them or not” If an act is determined to be negligent, then the question of recovery of damages depends only on if they are the direct consequence of the act If whatever you did is the direct cause of something, you are liable no matter how unforeseeable it is. It doesn’t have to be foreseeable at all.