Hi Wheely,
You can read the case report here: http://www.solicitor.ie/cases/f_case4.htm
As you'll see: it's a case on causation in a medical negligence context. So
the general rule is that the plaintiff must prove the elements of the tort
pleaded. The test for causation is whether the injury would have occurred
but for the defendant's default or negligence. If the injury would have
occurred anyway, causation is not shown and the case will not succeed.
Here the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the 'but for' rule was to be applied
and the onus of proof ought not to shift to the defendant. If this was
intended it would require legislative intervention.
John Freeman
Westland Law
www.lawgrinds.ie
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wheely
Sent: 04 April 2009 11:31
To: FE-1 Study Group
Subject: Tort Law Exam Monday
After the horror that was EC wouldnt mind trying to salvage some
dignity here.
Anyone have any tips from any of the Prep courses on what may be more
likely than not-would really help to prioritise with such a massive
course.
Also anyone have a short note on Quinn v Mid-Western Helath Board they
coulsd post, cant seem to find anything on it in my notes.
Much appreciated
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1
Study Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
