Negligence Essay

1916 Words4 Pages

Consider the adequacy of the ‘but for test’ for the purpose of establishing proof of factual causation in negligence Negligence is failure to take care of something that causes loss or injury to another person. In tort, there are four steps in proving negligence. In other words, in order for a claimant to claim a compensation regarding any damages, there must be a proof that the defendant is liable for those damages and is solely responsible for the loss or injury. The element of the tort of negligence includes a duty of care owned by the defendant, this shows that the defendant will be liable for their own carelessness if only they own a legal duty to the claimant. For example, a driver owns other drivers and pedestrians a duty of car. …show more content…

Two blind people cannot cross the road alone without any assistant so as the doctor who has vowed to treat sick people. This shows that even if the doctor was to treat them, he was more likely to have made mistakes or perhaps errors or administered the wrong treatment which wouldn’t have helped the situation. Considering the adequacy of the but for test in establishing the proof of factual causation in this case, it was used appropriately in this case because the plaintiff failed to established on the balance of probabilities that the deceased (Mr Barnett) death resulted from the negligence of the defendant(doctor). Yes, medical practitioners must use reasonable care and their professional skills to cure or help sick …show more content…

In Wilsher v Essex Area Authority [1988], where a premature baby received a poor treatment and was left blind. In court it was argued that there were four possible causes of the child’s blindness and each of them could to how the child became blind and each one could have been the cause of the blinders therefore the defendant could only be held responsible for only one of the causes or perhaps causes of the lead to the blindness of the child but nobody knows who contributed the most in this case therefore it could not be shown that the defendant’s negligence increased the risk of the plaintiff blindness. This demonstrate that despites but for test, the claimant was not able to justify the causation requirement. Similarly, during the case of Bonnington Castings LTD v Wardlaw, it was difficult to determine the cause of the claimant disease because there were two sources, the dust contributed to the disease and it was left for the plaintiff to show that on a balance of probabilities the breach of duty was the cause of his disease or contributed to his injury. Also, in Mchee v National Coal Board, the plaintiff was unsuccessful in proving that the defendant caused his dermatitis and also could not prove that washing facilities was a contributing factor to his dermatitis but the court of lords found out that the defendant was a

More about Negligence Essay

Open Document