Causation Flashcards
Factual causation test:
The harm suffered by the claimant must be caused by the fact that the defendant’s actions fell below the appropriate standard of care for liability to arise.
“But for the defendant’s carelessness, would the claimant have escaped harm?”
Must only establish that something was, on the balance of probabilities, a necessary condition for the harm occurring.
Classic example of the ‘but for’ test in action:
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hopsital Management Committee [1969]
A doctor failed to properly examine a man when he presented himself in the hospital’s casualty department. It transpired that the man was suffering from arsenic poisoning from which he subsequently died. The doctor admitted negligence. Even if he had acted properly, the man would have died anyway, as it was too late to do anything to save him.
He was not held liable for the death.
Multiple potential causes case:
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988]
He was cared for in the special cafe baby unit, being premature. Doctor negligently in monitoring blood, given too much oxygen twice, which can cause retrolental fibroplasia. The defence contended that premature birth can also cause it. In total, there were five competing causes, thus 20 per cent each likely to cause the harm.
HoL not persuaded that on the balance of probabilities the doctor was negligent.
Material contribution to the harm actually suffered case:
Bennington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956]
Factory employee contracted a lung condition from the inhalation of silica dust. Sued his employer in negligence. Dust inhalation was part of the job (‘innocent’ dust). The employer did not suitably ventilate the air, and more dust than there should have been (‘guilty’). The disease was progressive/cumulative, and so hard to say on balance of probabilities whether guilty dust did it. However, because cumulatively both dusts were more likely to cause harm, it was enough to show that the defendant’s negligence made a material contribution to the condition.
Material increase in risk of any harm being suffered:
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002]
Claimant had been exposed to asbestos, but from a series of negligent employers, not just one. Mesothelioma could be caused in a single moment, so the issue was establishing when the causative exposure occurred. Would failed on the ‘but for’ test.
They approved the ‘material increase of risk’ interpretation from McGhee and stated that in a case such as this, it would be enough to establish factual causation.
Legal causation - remoteness of damage case:
Whether the consequences of the negligent action was so far removed from it as to have been unforeseeable by the defendant.
Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock and Engineering (The Wagon Mound) No. 1 [1961]
Some oil leaked into the water and formed a thin film over its surface, spreading to claimant’s wharf. Welders’ sparks ignited the oil and the resulting fire caused lots of damage.
Because evidence showered that thinly spread oil on water was hard to ignite, damage to the claimant’s property caused by fire would not have been reasonably foreseeable to a reasonable person.
“Was the kind of damage suffered by the claimant reasonably foreseeable at the time the breach occurred?”
‘Egg shell skull’ rule:
A person will be liable for the full extent of the harm they caused, even if the person harmed suffered more harm than might be expected, due to existing weakness or frailty.
‘The defendant must take the victim as they find them.’
Legal causation - intervening acts case:
Knightley v Johns [1982]
A serious traffic accident in a one-way tunnel caused by the defendant’s negligence and police were called.
Police chief forgot to close the tunnel and sent two policeman on motorcycles in the opposite direction to close it. Claimant suffered injury when hit by a car.
The police officer giving the instruction had been negligent and that his negligent was sufficient to break the chain of causation between the defendant and the claimant.
