Causation

Question 1

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital 1968

Answer 1

Arsenic poisoning case. ‘But for’ the breach would the patient still have died? Factual causation not proven.

Question 2

McKew v Holland 1969

Answer 2

Novus actus interveniens.

Jumping down stairs = caused second injury.

Question 3

Gray v Thames Trains 2009

Answer 3

PTSD. Damages for loss of earnings.

Mental hospital. Cannot recover damages from sentences imposed for a criminal act.

Question 4

Re Polemis 1921

Answer 4

Traditional approach. Responsible for the direct consequence of ones actions.

Question 5

The Wagon Mound No.1 1961

Answer 5

Foreseeability. Debris in oil catches fire from some wielding and the fire spread.
You are liable if the damage resulting from your actions is foreseeable.

Question 6

Jolley v Sutton 2000

Answer 6

Boys found a boat and decided to fix it. One fell, suffered paraplegia. Council was found liable, although not foreseeable that they would try to fix the boat, it was foreseeable that the boat would be meddled with = physical injury.

Question 7

Smith v Leech Brain 1962

Answer 7

Egg-shell skull. Must take your victim as you find them and must still compensate for the full loss despite some existing weakness.
Had an existing pre-cancerous skin condition.
Burn on the lip caused by D = C died of cancer.

Question 8

Gregg v Scott 2005

Answer 8

‘But for’ test difficulties.
C has lost a chance of a better outcome. Dr failed to notice a cancerous lump which increased the chance of death. Liable as a result of the principle from Hoston = loss of chance is actionable = Lord Nicholls emphasised.

Question 9

Wilsher v Essex AHA 1988

Answer 9

More than one possible cause of C’s loss = can result in no person being recognised as the factual cause of C’s loss.
Multiple possible causes of the claimant’s blindness.

Question 10

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw 1956

Answer 10

Needed to demonstrate that the guilty dust had made a material contribution to his disease.

Question 11

Fairchild v Glenhaven 2002

Answer 11

HL = ‘but for’ test led to unjust results for C so applied McGee’s material contribution test. Defendant’s jointly and severally liable. Science was unable to detect which employer exposed C to asbestos.

Question 12

McGee v NCB 1973

Answer 12

Material contribution test.

Material contribution to the risk of harm accepted as sufficient.

Question 13

Holtby v Brigham 2000

Answer 13

Question of whether a condition can be treated as divisible. Worked for D for 12 years but worked for other employers who also exposed him to asbestos.
Judge gave damages to reflect the years that C had worked for D.
C appealed and was entitled to full compensation = not only partly liable.

Question 14

Fairchild v Glenhaven 2002

Answer 14

Held that if claimants could demonstrate that 1 employer had materially increased the risk of contracting mesothelioma they were entitled to claim full compensation = they were jointly and severally liable for the damage.

Question 15

Barker v Corus 2006

Answer 15

Reconsidered Fairchild. Difference was that some of the employers had become insolvent = proportionate liability.
But then the Compensation Act 2006 reversed the ruling, for mesothelioma only.

Question 16

Chester v Asfgshar 2004

Answer 16

Consultant failed to warn C of the risk of surgery.
No negligence in surgery but the failure to warn of the risk was classified as a breach of duty.
C claimed that she would have taken more time to consider, if surgery was on a different day, may not have gone badly = therefore liable and appeal was dismissed.