Causation Flashcards
Causa sine qua non
The D’s negligence has to be the necessary cause - if the but for test shows that at all events the injury to the C would have happened then the D’s negligence is not the ‘necessary cause’
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
also McWilliams
But for test - here, failed on the ‘but for’ test - must show on the balance of probabilities that but for the D’s negligence, this damage wouldn’t have happened
Bolton v Stone
Where the risk of injury is so small, and reasonable precautions have been taken, the Ds will not be found to be negligent i.e. here a woman hit with cricket ball next to ground, but fence was 17 foot and where she was stood was very unlikely - disproportionate to ask for me
Wilson v Governors of Sacred Heart RC Primary School
The courts can look at common practice to evaluate what is reasonable in wider circumstances - this does not mean, though, that an area with disregard for its employees will be allowed to evade liability because of this - also applies to sport
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board
Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital
Having a healthy child is not damage even where it is as a result of medical negligence - although the claim for pain and discomfort of childbirth succeeded – however, where the child is born disabled, the reasoning is the same but the parents can recover for the extra costs having a disabled child brings
McGhee v National Coal Board
Multiple causes - where there is more than one possible injury, causation can be proved if the claimant can show that the D’s negligence increased the risk of injury occurring
Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority
Loss of a chance causation - must prove causation, on the balance of probabilities, which means that it was more likely than not that the negligence caused the injury
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services
Restricted in Baker v Corus
Sienkiewicz v Greif
Where there are multiple tortfeasors, the current law stands that, provided that the tortfeasor materially increased the risk of damage then they will be liable - the rule in Fairchild will only not be taken into account where the exposure was too insignificant
Re Polemis
Remoteness - In torts which use the direct consequence test, Ds will be liable for any damage which is a direct result of their negligence, even if more serious than they could have foreseen – NO LONGER GOOD LAW - only in specific torts
Wagon Mound I
The test for remoteness is reasonable foreseeability, which means that a D will be liable for damage which was reasonably foreseeable at the time when the D breached their duty
Scott v Shepherd
An intervening event will only be a novus actus where the event itself was unforeseeable
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Conflicting views on types of damage being foreseeable, Hughes is the slightly broader one and seems to be preferred - do not decide between two, just show there are two possible lines of reasoning
Wagon Mound II
As long as the type of damage which occurred was foreseeable, it will not be too remote, even if the chances of it happening were small
