W OF TORT

LA S
Aqilah
PBL
Dhania
Group 2
Yasmin
 Material Facts
Zoeing 474 belonging to FlyME Airlines Razak rushed to the scene to have a closer look,
crashed into a village in Kuala Nerang, killing riding his motorcycle at a high speed when he hit Ali,
and injuring not only its passengers but also a pedestrian who was on the zebra crossing. Ali was
inhabitants of the village. The injured victims thrown a hundred meters away before he was
were sent to Maulana Hospital. subsequently hit by another car, to which he instantly
died.

Mr Borhan, a physics
teacher at a nearby school,
conducting a lab session
with his pupils. The strong
impact from the plane
crash weakened the
structures of the roof of the
Dr. Nedim, a junior doctor on standby school building, where the
attended to Jamil when he complained of his roof then caved in and
back and head hurting, The Dr. only recorded caused a loud explosion. Mr
Jamil's back pain. An x-ray had been conducted Borhan and his students
on Jamil’s head and blood clots had been were severely injured with
discovered. By the time the surgery had been first and second degree
carried out, Jamil had suffered a partial brain burns.
damage.
Raju suffered an injury to his knee and required an injection
of pain killer. Dr. Nedim did not inform Raju of any side effects from
such injection. After the injection, Raju suffered a severe allergy
which caused his death a few days later.
 Issue #1
Whether Dr. Nedim & Maulana Hospital had
failed to diagnose and treat Jamil who then
suffered partial brain damage

Plaintiff: Jamil
Defendant: Dr. Nedim & Maulana Hospital

 Rule Application
Conclusion
Bolam test
Bolam v Friern Hospital Dr. Nedim manage to Liable for
[1957]: “Doctor is not diagnose & treat Jamil's negligence
guilty of negligence if he
has acted in accordance
back pain Dr. Nedim
with a practice accepted Dr.Nedim failed to had breached
as proper by a
responsible body of
diagnose the head injury his duty of
medical men skilled in that Jamil had mentioned care
that medical act.” He was in a rush
He is not negligent failed to treat the head
merely because there is a injury on time as it caused
body of medical opinion
that takes a contrary view Jamil partial brain
damage.
Whether Dr. Nedim & Maulana Hospital
had failed to inform the risk of
medication against Raju who suffered a
severe allergy that caused his death

Plaintiff: Raju
Defendant: Dr. Nedim & Maulana
Hospital
Issue #2
 Application

Rule Conclusion
Dr Nedim failed to
inform Raju the
Whitaker Test side effects of the
painkiller he had Dr. Nedim liable
Whether the doctor
conformed to the
injected for negligence
standard of reasonable Also failed to Did not meet the
care demanded by the identify Raju's standard of
law is to be decided by allergy before the reasonable care
the court & not to be injection demanded by the
delegated to a group of law
professionals
 Issue #3

Whether Razak had caused the death of Ali

due to his speeding?

Plaintiff: Ali
Defendant: Razak
But for test simultaneous
Scene
pf need to prove that
Filtzegard v Lane
the injury would not
pf crossing the road
have happen but for 1st df hit him ,threw him
the df’s negligence.
on the bonet and back
Not applicable
onto the road
because there is more 2nd df struck him
than 1 defendant ,severly injured
jointly liable
Application
Razak hit him while
speeding
Ali was thrown 100m
away
hit by another car and
died
Similarly to the referred
case where the pf was hit
by the first car then
second car.
Razak had caused Ali's death due
to his speeding
causal link between breach and
injury
Razak's negligent act was the
effective cause of the injury
 Legal causation
Issue
Whether Razak's conduct of speeding is too
remote to be liable for Ali's death fully ?
Rule
Apply the Reasonable Foresight Test.
as long as the kind of damage is foreseeable
how it happened need not to be foreseeable
Hugh v Lord Advocate
injury by burning was forseaable,it did not
matter in which manner it come about
Application
As long as speeding can foresee an injury ,
how the collision happened need not be
foreseeable
the act of speding itself can cause an
accident
Conclusion
Ali's death is not too remote and reasonably
foreseeable by speeding at a village where there
is zebra crossing.

Issue #4

Whether FlyME Airlines could be held

liable for Mr. Borhan's burns?

Plaintiff: Mr. Borhan

Defendant: FlyME Airlines
 Factual causation
Issue Application

Whether there exists a casual link between Mr. Borhan would not have sustained
FlyME Airlines' breach and the burns suffered burns but for FlyME Airlines' conduct of
by Mr. Borhan? negligently crashing the aircraft.

Rule Conclusion

Apply the 'but-for' test in Barnett v Chelsea. There exists a casual link between FlyME Airlines'
But for the defendant's breach, would the breach and the loss suffered by Mr. Borhan.
damage to the plaintiff have occurred? Factual causation has been fulfilled.
 Legal causation
Issue
Whether FlyME Airlines' breach of duty of
care had been the proximate cause of Mr.
Borhan's burns?
Rule
Apply the case of Sivakumaran v Yu Pan & Anor.
Apply the Reasonable Foresight Test.
1. Defendant need not foresee the manner of
occurrence or extent of harm as long as the
kind or type of harm had been foreseeable.
2. Does not intervene with the eggshell skull rule.
Application
The kind of harm inflicted is burns, which is an
unforeseeable consequence of a plane crash.
FlyME Airlines' negligence had not been the
proximate cause of burns.
Conclusion
The damage suffered by Mr. Borhan is
recognised to be too remote and unforeseeable
by a reasonable man.
Legal causation is not satisfied, hence the lawsuit
would unlikely succeed.
FlyME Airlines is not liable for
the burns sustained by
Mr. Borhan.
Thank You
Group 2