Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Compose a 2500 words assignment on the english law on defences. Needs to be plagiarism free!
Compose a 2500 words assignment on the english law on defences. Needs to be plagiarism free! The relevance of causation has been focused after the Act of 1945 which is reflected in the case Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd [1952] 2 Q.B. 608 CA (McQuater, J 2009, pp. C34-39). The said case focused on the causal link between “fault” and “damage”, wherein a car passenger, even though not accountable for the injuries suffered as a result of an accident, contributory negligence will be considered especially ‘if the injuries appear to have been worse than they would have been had a seat belt been in use’ (Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd [1952]). However, even if there is a finding of ‘fault’, if the use of a seat belt could not have prevented the injuries that happened, the causal link will be absent and a finding of contributory negligence would not be appropriate (McQuater, J 2009, pp. C34-39). This is an application of the ‘but for’ test, which is often utilized to establish causation especially in finding primary liability (McQuater, J 2009, pp. C34-39).
The decision in Ryan St George v The Home Office (2007/CA 2008, RCJQB) provides the different themes on the law on contributory negligence and recommends consideration of several factors (McQuater, J 2009, pp. C34-39). First, ‘there must be ‘fault’ on the part of the claimant within the meaning of this word as provided in the 1945 Act’ (Ryan St George v The Home Office (2007/CA 2008, RCJQB). As held in the case of Jones, ‘momentary inattention will not amount to a fault’ even if the claimant does not act as a reasonable, prudent person would, which might permit the others the possibility of being careless (Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd [1952]). Second, claimant’s ‘fault’ together with the ‘defendant’s breach of duty must have caused or contributed to the relevant damage’ (McQuater, J 2009, pp. C34-39). Third, the ‘fault’ must be adequately combined with .events that result in primary liability, mainly in time and space, in that it can correctly be considered ‘as a cause of the damage’ which resulted, instead of merely a ‘part of the background circumstances, history or events’.
