Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Material contribution (Problems (uncertainty and arbitrary since not based…

- - - - where there is vulnerability/non negligence, it should still be accounted into totality of situation when assessing the impact of the negligent act. it should be treated as manifestation of eggshell rule. ->not unfairness
        
        Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956]: lung disease from negligent dust (dust which would have disappeared had there been an extractor fan) and non-negligent dust( dust which would have been there anyway). Negligent dust was found a minority. But, courts still ruled in P's favour since required material contribution only.
- - - - inconsistency: Roberts v Bettany vs Knightley v Johns, arguably based on public policy
      - wright v Lodge: arguably the motorist is negligent as well. But her acts were overtaken by the recklessness of lorry driver(not mere negligence)
      - Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd: judge whether NAI based on fairness, but fairness to D's? they may not have foreseen severity of the harm
- - - - Williams: material contribution not confined to simultaneous events. "As a matter of principle, successive events were capable of each making a material contribution union to the outcome".
      - Arksey v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Trust [2019] affirmed that the exception to but for test and is confined to situation "where there are contributory causes, whether concurrent or successive"
- - - - Q: When not use the exception? sequence is important
        
        Hotson: evidence shown had he been properly diagnosed and treated for the first time, would have 25% chance of full recovery.
        
        Favouring but for test: courts found material contribution from the delay to the development of necrosis, but necrosis would have developed from the fall in any event ie not satisfy but for test. the falling was too large of a cause that later misdiagnosis played no part in the entire injury. No material contribution and courts chose to justify in but for test as well
        
        Williams: courts infer on the balance of probabilities that the hospital boards negligence materially contributed to the process by which there was a greater accumulation of sepsis which in turn had contributed to the damage to the claimant's heart and lungs
      - Q: Earlier event completely overtaken by later events (of same cause)
        
        later event amounts to another claim. Later event being the cause, or an NAI
        
        will then satisfy but for test. no need to use material contribution