Causation

Question 1

Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

Answer 1

‘But for’ the breach, would the defendant have suffered the loss?
Doctor failed to examine a patient with arsenic poisoning, but even if he had she would have died

Question 2

Wilsher v Essex

Answer 2

Multiple independent causes - the breach must have caused the loss on the balance of probabilities
5 potential causes of blindness, only one of which was negligence - unable to establish on balance of probabilities

Question 3

Hotson v East Berkshire HA

Answer 3

Loss of a chance is non-recoverable

Permanent disability in hip 75% caused by fall from tree, 25% due to medical negligence

Question 4

Gregg v Scott

Answer 4

Loss of chance is non-recoverable

42% chance of recovery reduced to 25% due to incorrect cancer diagnosis

Question 5

Allied Maples v Simmons and Simmons

Answer 5

Loss of a chance may succeed in pure economic loss

Claimants lost the chance to negotiate a better deal

Question 6

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw

Answer 6

Claimant exposed to dust and developed lung disease - only some dust was tortious
Material contribution test = if the defendant’s breach materially contributed to the loss, then the defendant is liable for all the loss (multiple cumulative causes)

Question 7

McGhee v NCB

Answer 7

Prolonged skin contact with dust caused the claimant to develop dermatitis (defendants failed to provide showers)
If the breach had materially contributed to the risk, then the defendants were liable for all the loss

Question 8

Bailey v MoD

Answer 8

Multiple contributions (medical negligence combined with progression of disease)
Material = more than negligible

Question 9

Mountford v Newlands School

Answer 9

Defendant headmaster was found to have materially increased the risk of injury by selecting an older player for the rugby team

Question 10

Fairchild v Glenhaven Services

Answer 10

Mesothelioma = material contribution test (fair, just and reasonable to depart from ‘but for’ test)

Question 11

Fitzgerald v Lane

Answer 11

When more than one defendant has caused the loss, the court the can apportion damages between them

Question 12

Holtby v Brigham

Answer 12

Mesothelioma case - compensation divided up proportionally between employers

Question 13

Barker v Corus UK

Answer 13

Mesothelioma case - liability should be apportioned according to each defendant’s contribution to the total risk

Question 14

Baker v Willoughby

Answer 14

Multiple causes with identifiable losses - plaintiff suffered leg injury in road accident, then was shot in a robbery (leg had to be amputated) - defendant continued to be liable for original leg injury beyond second incident

Question 15

Jobling v Associated Dairies

Answer 15

Claimant negligently injured at work, then went on to suffer a back injury arising from an unconnected illness that meant he could not work - defendant’s liability extinguished at the point the back injury developed (unrelated and unforeseeable) - should not have to compensate for the vicissitudes of life

Question 16

Humber Oil v Sivand

Answer 16

NAI (natural event) - must be unforeseeable and unconnected with defendant - foreseeable that sea bed could collapse and incur additional costs

Question 17

Meah v McCreamer

Answer 17

NAI - claimant suffered injury in road accident that led him to develop personality disorder and commit various criminal acts - disorder was linked to original accident so no break in chain of causation

Question 18

Knightley v Johns

Answer 18

NAI - defendant caused a road accident which was negligently handled by a police inspector - a police officer died - negligence broke the chain as unforeseeable and unconnected with the defendant

Question 19

Scott v Shepherd

Answer 19

If a third party acts instinctively there is no break in the chain of causation

Question 20

Smith v Littlewoods

Answer 20

Failed to secure a cinema and squatters set fire to it, causing damage to neighbouring property – broke chain of causation as unconnected to defendants and unforeseeable (had never happened before)

Question 21

Robinson v Post Office

Answer 21

Medical negligence will only break the chain of causation if grossly negligent or palpably wrong
Improper testing for tetanus and suffered allergic reaction - not extreme enough to break chain

Question 22

McKew v Holland

Answer 22

NAI (act of claimant) must be unreasonable and unforeseeable - claimant had leg injury and was advised to be careful - jumped down the stairs - defendants were not responsible for subsequent injury

Question 23

Wieland v Cyril Carpets

Answer 23

NAI (act of claimant) suffered neck injury due to negligence, then fell down stairs due to inability to focus through bifocal lenses (wearing neck brace) - not unreasonable so did not break chain

Question 24

Spencer v Wincanton

Answer 24

NAI (act of claimant) - leg amputated following negligent injury, then tripped over manhole cover and hurt other leg - chain not broken but damages reduced through contrib neg

Question 25

Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea Health Authority

Answer 25

NAI (act of claimant) - fell pregnant after negligence sterilisation operation and refused to have an abortion - held to reasonable and not breaking chain of causation

Question 26

Reeves v Metropolitan Police

Answer 26

Acts of the claimant will not be treated as a NAI when there is a duty of care which specifically requires the defendant to prevent the claimant from taking such action (not unforeseeable)

Question 27

Corr v IBC Vehicles

Answer 27

Claimant suffered head injury at work, developed depression and PTSD then died - defendant had a duty of care to prevent the suicide - fair just and reasonable to link it with original tort