Causation Flashcards
general definition
‘Causation is the relation between two events that holds when, given that one occurs, it produces, or brings forth, or determines, or necessitates the second - Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy
factual causation
but for test
but for D’s actions the consequence would not have occurred
2 purposes: identify necessary conditions of a harmful outcome and eliminate irrelevant considerations
legal causation
looking or the substantial/direct cause of a harmful outcome
search for wrongdoers - rule of thumb when addressing the Q of legal causation
remoteness
palsgraf v long island raliway co - at what point should we decline to trace a sequence of harmful events beyond a certain point?
causation and judicial discretion
baker v willoughby - C = road traffic accident, badly injured leg - earnings cut due to bad mobility - one day went to work and armed robbers shot injured leg - amputated
D1 held liable for reduced mobility and earning cut even after shooting
2 harmful interventions - original driver and robbers - D t1 tried to arg robbers intervention trunqats further responsibility on original injuries
arg that from point of shooting cant be a but for factual course for ongoing injury - HoLs allowed compensation after injury as fear for undercompensation - pragmatic decision
just appointment of responsibility of harm
Rahman V Arearose Ltd
D1 (C’s employer) fails to protect C from attack; surgery on eye carried out negligently by D2 - C blinded in damaged eye - health care provider admits blindness
C suffers P-TSD as a result of this sequence (beating and negligence healthcare) D1 bore 25% of the responsibility for C’s P-TSD. D2 was responsible for the balance. - both passed ‘but for’ test
apportion loss between wrongdoers to extent of involvement and responsbility
novus actus interveniens
breaks chain of causation - if so then good reason for relieving the original wrongdoer of any responsibility for their relevant harmful outcome/ continuing responsibility
something unexpected disrupted a predictable sequence of events
third party conduct
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd: Dorset = detention facility for young criminals for aim of rehabilitation - HO personnel went to sleep on job and they absconded on the claimants boat which they damaged - who bears resp for boat damage? HO? Or their voluntary conduct something which breaks chain? - original wrongdoer (HO) = fixed with liability - Lord reid said this was likely to happen
third-party conduct must be ‘very likely to happen’ (Lord Reid).
Generally third party conduct will break chain
Ward v Cannock Chase DC: 3rd party conduct breaks chain unless 3rd party act was ‘virtually certain’ (Scott J).
A common theme: we are rarely liable for the wrongdoing of others.
proof of causation
McGhee v National Coal Board (House of Lords): working in D’s brick kilns, C was exposed to brick dust - no shower facility @ work and contracted dermatitis and sought to argue D = responsible (national coal board) as board failed to provide showers at work
D had breached the duty it owed to C by failing to provide adequate washing facilities
The current state of medical knowledge could not say whether it was probable that C would not have contracted dermatitis if he had been able to take a shower after work - no clear answer to Q
C could not establish ‘but-for’ (factual) causation
if no hard edged facts available creator of risk should be punished - lord wilberforce in McGhee
only way D can escape liability is having evidence they didnt cause it - Clark V MacLennan
fairchild case - leading auth on proof of causation
exposure to asbestos; duties breached by more than one employer and developed cancer.
Wilsher applied by the Court of Appeal: causation could not be proved
Fairchild in the House of Lords: McGhee applied - claim rejected then went to HOLs who said:
Where D (i) breaches duty owed to C and brings about (ii) a material increase in risk, liability can be imposed on D for (iii) the full loss.
claimant could satisfy the burden of proof that one employer had materially contributed to their asbestos exposure, and thus had materially raised the probability of the claimant contracting cancer, the claimant could claim total compensation from them (although that employer may claim joint contributions from the other employers).
D may have been responsible for only a small proportion of the exposure to risk.
proof of causation - Rothwell case
Court of Appeal and the House of Lords declined to accept claims that concerned the thickening of membrane around the lungs (following exposure to asbestos).
C tried to arg they should be compensated for this - concluded what was at stake did not constitute actionable physical injury.
Risk of subsequent injury insufficient to ground a claim. - negligence law about responsibility to physical or other measurable forms of damage not risk
Psychiatric injury resulting from fear that disease may develop insufficient to ground a claim. - rejected
proof of causation - Sienkiewicz case
deceased worked in D’s offices in Ellesmore port - exposed to asbestos
exposure to asbestos = breach of duty and material increase in risk
A problem: all residents of Ellesmere Port had been exposed to low levels of asbestos in the general atmosphere. - occurring in environment
Hence, the deceased’s disease and death may not have been caused by D.
D’s argument: since there had only been one employer, C should have to prove causation on the balance of probabilities. (single exposure case) - the conventional approach
D also argued that C should have to prove that D had more than doubled the relevant risk. - judge accepted this
BUT CoA said fairchild applies - D liable in full – even if there is another source of asbestos fibre in play
D appealed to SC - ‘the Fairchild exception applies in single exposure cases’.
The claimant was ‘entitled to succeed’ if she proved that D’s breach of duty materially increased the risk that her mother would develop mesothelioma.
