Causation Flashcards
• No liability in negligence if D does not suffer damage case
Hunter v CW
• Factual cause case
Barnett v chelsea & kensington hospital
legal cause case
jones v boyce
• Medical negligence rarely breaks the chain case
Robinson v post office
if multiple causes of damage potentially not liable case
wilsher v essex ha
if multiple causes can still be liable case
fairchild v glenhaven & others
court must decide whether damage is too remote as in what case
wagon mound no1
what is the remoteness test
kind of damage must be foreseeable not the extent
liable for full extent of the damage in remoteness of damage aka thin skull rule as in what case
smith v leech brain
doesn’t matter if kind of damage came about in unforeseeable way as in what case
hughes v Lord advocate
others intervening foreseeable i.e rescuers as in what case
haynes v harwood
Exceptions to factual causation - cumulative diseases. What are the 3 scenarios?
1 Guilty negligent exposure sole cause - d is guilty
2 innocent exposure - inevitable so no claim
3 combination. Exposed to both negligent and innocent chemicals. Exception to ‘ balance of probabilities’
Exception - multiple sufficient causes - injury then supervening event which obliterates effect of injury. Which 2 cases can be contrasted?
Baker- leg injured, later shot in leg and amputated. Should D still pay damages? Yes. fear of ‘gap’ in damages
Jobling - work place injury and before trial contracted unrelated back disease - not followed baker. Only compensate up to time of disease ‘vicissitudes of life’
Exception - indeterminable cause in employment context.Which case involves brick dust?
McGhee v national coal board- innocent brick dust at work but guilty after- no washing facilities. On strict application no damages but stretched law to fit case.
Exception - indeterminable cause in employment context. Which case involved asbestos and mesothelioma?
Fairchild. Exposed to asbestos by multiple employers. Contracts mesolthelioma impossible to prove which. HL applied McGhee as employer ‘materially increased risk of harm’ owed damages.
