But for test

Question 1

The claimant would have suffered their loss even without the defendant’s breach - But for the defendant’s breach (failing to examine), would the claimant have died at that time and in that way? Yes. On the
balance of probabilities, the claimant still would have died even if he had been examined by the doctor. Drinking the poisoned tea would have brought about his death whether or not he was treated by the doctor.

Answer 1

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington
Hospital

Question 2

The defendent’s act was the factual cause of the claimant’s damage- had appropriate railings been installed, the claimant would not have not fallen off the platform while having the seizure. The defendant’s breach
therefore caused the accident.

Answer 2

Cork v Kirby

Question 3

defendant (doctor) failed to advise risks of undergoing surgery to claimant and court held that in this situation where breach is a failure to advise in risk, the ‘but for’ test is satisfied if the claimant can prove on the balance of probabilities, that if they had been warned, they would not have had the operation/treatment or deferred it to a later date

Answer 3

Chester v Afshar

Question 4

both tortious + non-tortious dust operated together = satisfied test

Answer 4

Bonnington v Wardlaw

Question 5

both tortious treatment + non tortious (natural progression of disease) = negligent
treatment materially contributed = test satisfied

Answer 5

Bailey v MOD

Question 6

delayed treatment made brain injury worse = test satisfied

Answer 6

Dr Sido John v Manchester NHS Trust

Question 7

dermatitis disease could have been caused by single exposure either non-tortious (working in Kiln) or lack of washing facilities (tortious), employer held liable due to material risk ↑

Answer 7

McGhee v National Coal Board

Question 8

BFT + MCT test failed, HoL held material increase in risk of asbestos.

Answer 8

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services

Question 9

paralysed from tree fall, BFT failed as 75% likely paralysed even without
negligent care, claimant argued ‘loss of chance’ as there was 25% chance of recovery. HoL rejected.
Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons: claimant lost chance to negotiate a clause in a contract due to solicitor’s failure to advise, causation successful.

Answer 9

Houston v East Berkshire Healthy
Authority

Question 10

unforeseeable a storm would damage the collided vessel.

Answer 10

Carslogie v Royal Norwegian Government

Question 11

Police officer negligently caused damage to another by sending traffic the wrong way.

Answer 11

Knightly v Johns

Question 12

actions made in the heat of the moment don’t break the chain.

Answer 12

Scott v Shepherd

Question 13

medical treatment must be ‘palpaby wrong’ to be a novus actus

Answer 13

Robinson v The Post office

Question 14

high degree of control exercised over the boyds prevented their actions from being a Novus actus

Answer 14

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co

Question 15

claimant suffered leg injury due to defendant’s negligence, claimant went down stairs no rail and it was held that the claimant acted very unreasonably = broke the chain of causation between breach + ankle.

Answer 15

McKew v Holland

Question 16

claimant suffered leg injury due to defendant’s negligence, claimant went down stairs no rail and it was held that the claimant acted very unreasonably = broke the chain of causation between breach + ankle.

Answer 16

McKew v Holland

Question 17

claimant wore a neck brace due to the defendant’s negligence which restricted her ability to use glasses, as a result, she fell down stairs. Held: claimant had acted carefully + actions did not break chain

Answer 17

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets

Question 18

CoA held reasonableness is only part of claimant’s actions + ultimately is about ‘fairness’
lOMoARcPSD|7294382

Answer 18

Spencer v Wincanton