Causation Flashcards
After breach is established
Claimant must prove that this breach caused the damage.
Without it the claim will fail.
To determine if there is causation two points must be considered
1) Factual causation
2) Legal causation
Factual causation
Deals with establishing the link between breach and damage
Legal causation
Involves considering whether there are any grounds upon which the link should be regarded as having been broken
Factual Consideration Test
On the balance of probabilities, “but for” the defendant’s breach of duty, would the claimant have suffered their loss at that time and in that way?
Satisfaction of the “but for” test
The claimant would not have suffered their loss were it not for the defendant’s breach
“But for” test is not satisfied
Claimant would have suffered their loss even without the defendant’s breach
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hosp 1969
FACTS
Hosp breached DoC as Dr fail to carry out proper examination.
Patient died of arsenic poisoning after drinking poisoned tea.
He would have died even if Dr has examined him.
Little to no chance antidote could have been administered to him
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hosp 1969
HELD
Claim failed for causation
On the balance of probabilities
Still would have died.
The “but for” test must be proved
Must be proved on the balance of probabilities
With a more than 50% chance that the defendant’s breach caused the claimant’s loss.
Wilsher v Essex AHA 1988
FACTS
- Claimant was born prematurely and suffered a condition that caused him to go blind.
- could have been caused by any one of five equally probable different factor
- Only one was tortious.
- Evidence suggested that only one factor caused the loss.
Wilsher v Essex AHA 1988
HELD
Claimant had to prove that but for the defendant’s breach he would not have suffered blindness.
Had to establish more than 50%, could only establish 20%
Failed
Case used for factual causation in clincial negligence where the breach is to advise on risks
Chester v Afshar 2004
Chester v Afshar 2004
FACTS
- Failed to disclose very small risk of paralysis
- Claimant suffered paralysis in one leg
- Causation only proved if claimant could show they would not have had the operation having known the risk
Chester v Afshar 2004
HELD
“But for” test satisfied if claimant can proof on the balance of probabilities they would not have had the operation or deferred it to a later date
Claimant proved it
Bonnington Castings v Wardlow 1956
**FACTS*
- Sued employers in negligence for a respiratory disease
- Clear that the cause was exposure to dust, only part was due to breach of duty
- Tortious and non tortious dust worked together
- Medical evidence = evidence - could not satisfy the but for test
Bonnington Castings v Wardlow 1956
**HELD*
HoL deviated for the “but for” test.
Introduced the material contribution test.
This means a “more than negligible” contribution.
Claimant was successful
Material contribution test
Court meant a “more than negligible” contribution to the loss
Bailey V Ministry of Defence 2008
FACTS
- Choked on vomit due to weakness causing brain damage
- Weakness caused by natural progression of claimants condition
- Negligent lack of care by the defendant
Medics could not use the “but for” test
Bailey V Ministry of Defence 2008
HELD
Cllaim succeeded.
The claimant could prove that the negligent treatment (the breach) made a material (more than negligble) contribution to her brain damage.
Cases where medical science cannot establish the probability that “but for” an act of negligence the injury would not have happened…
But can establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the “but for” test is modified
Sequential cumulative causes
Material contribution test applies
Simultaneous cumulative causes
Material Contribution Test Applies
Material Increase In Risk Case
McGhee v National Coal Board 1973
McGhee v National Coal Board 1973
FACTS
- Claimant contacted dermatitis as a result of exposure to brick dust.
- Working with brick dust = non tortious
- Breach = lack of washing facilities at the end of the day = on skin for an extended time
But for test not satisfied
Can’t prove cumulative
McGhee v National Coal Board 1973
HELD
- Tortious dust materially increased the risk of contracting dermatitis.
- Longer dust was on skin - greater the risk of contracting dermatitis
= materially increased the risk of injury
Only applies in very limited situations as is an easier threshold
Limits of the material increase in risk test
Confined to industrial disease cases only where there is scientific uncertainty over cause.
Most widely applied in mesothelioma cases
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd 2003
FACTS
- Claimant worked for employers at different times in the 60s all exposing him to asbestos.
- Unable to determine whether mesothelioma was caused by cumulative or a single exposure.
Impossible to say which employer
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd 2003
HELD
HoL applied the material increase in risk test
* Claim succeeded.
* The claimant could show that by exposing him to asbestos, the defendant had materially increased his risk of mesothelioma
Weighed against the argument that people who suffer harm due to the employers’ breach deserve to be compensated.
Limits to the material increase in risk test
- Material increase in risk test is applicable only to industrial disease, single-agency cases.
Single agency
Means that there is only one causal agent.
Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority 1987
- Child fell from a tree and broke his leg.
- The hospital was negligent in its treatment and the child was left paralysed.
- Medical evidence indicated that there was 75% - the “but for” test failed.
Claimant argued loss of chance - Lost 25% chance of recovery and therefore should get 25% of losses
= REJECTED by HoL
Loss of Chance
Does not seem to apply to medical negligence cases
Only economic loss/
Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons 1995
Claimant lost chance to negotiate a clause as a result of solicitor failure to advise.
Causation successful as proved that there was no real and substantial chance that seller would have agreed to that clause
Wilsher compared with McGhee
Exceptions to materially increased risk
McGhee or loss of chance
Case:
Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
(arsenic poisoning)
“But for” test: not satisfied.
Negligence made no difference.
Law
“But for” test: not satisfied.
Negligence made no difference.
Case:
Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
(arsenic poisoning)
Law
“But for” test: not satisfied.
Could not prove link between negligence and loss
Wilsher v AHA
(lack of oxygen
Case
Wilsher v AHA
(lack of oxygen)
Law
“But for” test: not satisfied.
Could not prove link between negligence and loss
Law
Material contribution test
Satisfied - cumulative causes
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw
(dust)
Bailey v Ministry of Defence
(choking on vomit)
Case
Bailey v Ministry of Defence
(choking on vomit)
Law
Material contribution test
Satisfied - cumulative causes
Case
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw
(dust)
Law
Material contribution test
Satisfied - cumulative causes
Law
Increase in risk test
Satisfied - single agent
One tortfeasor
McGhee v National Coal Board
(dust, dermatitis)
Case
McGhee v National Coal Board
(dust, dermatitis)
Law
Increase in risk test
Satisfied - single agent
One tortfeasor
Law
Increase in risk test
Satified single agent several torfeasors
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Serviced
(asbestos, mesothelioma)
Loss of chance
Not satisfied - personal injury
Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority
(falling from tree, negligent medical care)
Loss of chance test
Satisfied - pure economic loss
Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons
solicitor’s negligence, loss of chance to negotiate
“But for” test in clinical negligence cases where the breach is a failure to advise on risk
(Satisfied if the claimant can prove that they would not have had the treatment at that time)
Chester v Afshar
Small risk of paralysis, would not have had the spinal operation at that time if informed of the paralysis risk
Apportionment
A calculation to apply once factual causation has been established.
Where there are multiple tortious factors, the courts apportion liability in a practical way
Fitzgerald v Land & Patel 1987
FACTS
Claimant crossed the road at a pelican crossing when the lights were red. Hit and then run over by another car.
Both defendants equally negligent, impossible to say which of the collisions caused the injuries
Fitzgerald v Land & Patel 1987
HELD
Each defendant responsible for 25%
50% non recoverable representing own negligence.
Mesothelioma under s3 of the Compensation Act 2006
Defendants are jointly and severally liable /
Any or all of the negligent employers who exposed the claimant to asbestos will be liable to the claimant for the whole sum of damages.
Multiple Sufficient Causes Case
Performance Cars v Abraham 1962
Performance Cars v Abraham 1962
FACTS
A third party negligently collided with Rolls Royce.
Rolls required respray.
Second collison caused similar respray to repair it
Performance Cars v Abraham 1962
HELD
As the requirement for a respray already existed before the second collision there was effectively no damage arising from the second collision
Multiple sufficient causes
Contrasting case law
Baker v Willoughby 1970
Jobling v Associated Diaries 1982
Baker v Willoughby 1970
FACTS
- Due to degendant’s negligence the claimant suffered a leg injury.
- Subsequently was shot in a robbery and his injured leg had to be amputated.
- Robbers not found
Baker v Willoughby 1970
HELD
- First defendant should continue to be liable for the orignal injuries, beyond the time of the robbery.
- The intervening tortfeaser should compensate for any additional losses
Jobling v Associated Diaries 1982
FACTS
- Due to defendant’s negligence, claimant injured their back, suffered reduced earnings.
- Later suffered a further back injury (non-tortious)
Jobling v Associated Diaries 1982
HELD
Defendant’s liability ceased at the point that the further back injury developed.
Did not have to compensate the claimant for the vicissitudes of life
Performance Cars v Abraham - summary
Second defendant not liable if they have not caused any additional damage.
Summary: Baker v Willoughby
**Two tortious events*
* First defendant liable for inital injuries past the point of second event.
* Second defendant (if found) liable for additional leases.
Suggested the courts did this to prevent “manifest injustice”
Summary: Jobling v Associated Dairies
- Tort followed by natural event
- Key difference to baker
- Defendant liable until natural event.
- Second event can be novus actus interveniens
If no additional damage
Defendant will not be liable.
Second event is tortious
- First defendant is liable for the original damage past the point of the second event.
- Second defendant liable for any additional damage.
Second event is naturally occurring
Defendant is liable for damage only up to the natural event.
Factual causation
Establishing the link between the breach and the damage.
Legal causation
Considering whether there are any grounds upon the link should be regarded as having been broken
Defendant is not liable for absolutely everything that follows from thier breach.
A line has to be drawn and certain subsequent events that occur after the breach may break the chain of causation
nova actus interveniens
An intervening act that breaks the chain.
Types of novus actusinterveniens
1) Acts of God or natural events
2) Acts of third parties
3) Acts of the claimant
Acts of God or natural events
An act of God breaks the chain of causation if exceptional natural event.
* Eg lightning, drowning in a flood, onset of certain disease.
Act of God Example Case
Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government 1952
Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government 1952
FACTS
- Claimant vessel damaged in collision
- Defendant admitted liability
- Repairs not immediate - taken to US for repair
- Vessel suffered heavy storm damage
- Initial damage 10 days to fix, storm damage 51
Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government 1952
HELD
- Defendant liable for damages of the first collision.
- Storm = novus actus interveniens.
- Natural Events will not break the chain of causation if could have been forseen.
Acts of third parties
Courts see this as highly unforseeable (something was very unlikely to happen as a result of the defendant’s negligence)
Knightley v Johns 1982
FACTS
- Defendant caused a road traffic accident
- Police inspector negligently handled traffic flow - officer was then injured.
Knightley v Johns 1982
HELD
- First defendant successfully argued that negligent handling broke the chain of causation between his negligence and the officers injury
Acts of third parties - Medical treatment
Courts are reluctant to hold that this breaks the chain of causation.
medical treatment will not break the chain unless it is so gross and egregious as to be unforeseeable
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group 2011
FACTS
- Claimant was a child whom the defendant GP had negligently failed to refer.
- When eventually referred treatment was negligent
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group 2011
HELD
- Hosp had been negligent but not such an egregious event to destroy causal link.
- Defendant GP was liable to the full extent of the claimant’s loss, regardless of the negligence
Acts of the claimant
Can break the chain of causation (where the claimant does something which causes them further harm)
Acts of the claimant - Legal Test
- Event must be highly unreasonable.
- Very rare - as would normally be dealt with under the defense of contributory negligence.
- Claimant’s damages are reduced to reflect the extent to which they contributed to their loss.
McKew v Holland & Hammen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd 1969
FACTS
- Claimants suffered leg injury due to the defendant’s negligence
- Impaired mobility
- Broke his ankle on steps
McKew v Holland & Hammen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd 1969
HELD
Claimant acted very unreasonably and broke the chain of causation between breach and ankle
Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets 1969
FACTS
- Due to defendant’s negligence the claimant wore a neck brace which restricted her ability to use glasses.
- Fell down some stairs and injured her ankle
Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets 1969
HELD
- Claimant acted reasonably
- Had help from her son when descending the stairs.
- Did not break the chain, defendant liable for ankle injury
Effect of a novus actus interveniens
- Breaks the chain of causation.
- Defendant will still be responsible for any loss before the novus actus interveniens
- Not responsible for any loss after
