Causation

Question 1

What is the ‘but for’ test?

Answer 1

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?

Question 2

What does it mean if factual causation is satisfied?

Answer 2

The claimant would not have suffered their loss were it not for the defendant’s breach.

Question 3

What happens if factual causation is not satisfied?

Answer 3

The claimant would have suffered their loss even without the defendant’s breach.

Question 4

What is the key case illustrating the ‘but for’ test?

Answer 4

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428: The hospital breached the duty of care, but the claimant would have died regardless of the breach.

Question 5

What is the significance of the balance of probabilities in the ‘but for’ test?

Answer 5

It must be proved that there is a greater than 50% chance that the defendant’s breach caused the claimant’s loss.

Question 6

What is the significance of having multiple probable causes

Answer 6

The claimant could not prove factual causation as there were five equally probable causes for his blindness, only one of which was tortious.

Question 7

Will the but for test be satisfied if the claimant can show if they were told about the risk they would not have had the operation

Answer 7

No
The court relaxed the ‘but for’ test, allowing the claimant to prove that had they been warned of the risk, they would not have undergone the operation.

Question 8

What is the material contribution test?

Answer 8

It applies when there are multiple causes of the claimant’s loss acting together, cumulatively to cause the loss.

Question 9

What is the material increase in risk test confined to?

Answer 9

It is confined to industrial disease claims and situations with scientific uncertainty.

Question 10

What is the loss of chance argument?

Answer 10

In Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] AC 750, the claimant argued he lost a 25% chance of recovery due to negligence, but the House of Lords rejected this.

Question 11

What is apportionment in legal causation?

Answer 11

Apportionment calculates liability among multiple tortious factors that caused part of the loss.

Question 12

What was the outcome of Fitzgerald v Lane & Patel [1987] QB 781?

Answer 12

Each defendant was held responsible for 25% of the claimant’s losses due to shared negligence.

Question 13

What happens in cases of multiple sufficient causes?

Answer 13

If one action comes after another, the first defendant may still be liable for the original damage.

Question 14

What is legal causation?

Answer 14

It involves determining if there is a necessary link between a breach of duty and damage suffered by a claimant.

Question 15

What are the three types of intervening events?

Answer 15

Acts of God or natural events, acts of third parties, and acts of the claimant.

Question 16

What is the significance of acts of God in legal causation?

Answer 16

An act of God can break the chain of causation if it is an exceptional natural event.

Question 17

What was the ruling in Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government [1952] AC 292?

Answer 17

The defendant was liable for damages from the initial collision but not for storm damage, as it was a novus actus interveniens.

Question 18

What does it mean if an act of a third party breaks the chain of causation?

Answer 18

It is viewed as breaking the chain if it was highly unforeseeable.

Question 19

What was the outcome of Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349?

Answer 19

The negligence of the police inspector was deemed a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation.

Question 20

What is the principle of novus actus interveniens?

Answer 20

The principle of novus actus interveniens states that the defendant is not always liable for everything that follows from their breach. Certain events that occur after the breach may break the chain of causation.

Question 21

What are the three types of novus actus interveniens?

Answer 21

The three types of novus actus interveniens are acts of God, acts of third parties, and acts of the claimant.

Question 22

When do acts of God break the chain of causation?

Answer 22

Acts of God break the chain of causation if they are exceptional natural events.

Question 23

When do acts of third parties break the chain of causation?

Answer 23

Acts of third parties break the chain of causation if they are highly unforeseeable.

Question 24

When does medical treatment by a third party break the chain of causation?

Answer 24

The act of a third party is medical treatment and will only break the chain of causation if it is so gross and egregious as to be unforeseeable.

Question 25

What is the legal test for an act of the claimant breaking the chain of causation?

Answer 25

The legal test is that the act must be highly unreasonable.

Question 26

Is it common for a claimant’s unreasonable behavior to break the chain of causation?

Answer 26

It is rare for the claimant’s unreasonable behavior to break the chain of causation as this is usually dealt with under the defence of contributory negligence.

Question 27

What was the outcome in McKew v Holland & Hanmen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd?

Answer 27

The claimant acted very unreasonably and broke the chain of causation between the breach and broken ankle.

Question 28

What was the outcome in Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd?

Answer 28

The claimant had acted carefully, and her actions did not break the chain; the defendant was liable for her ankle injury.

Question 29

What is the effect of a novus actus interveniens?

Answer 29

The effect of a novus actus is that it breaks the chain of causation. The defendant will still be responsible for any loss before the novus actus event but will not be responsible for any loss after it.