Causation- Chapter 4

Question 1

In order for a successful claim of causation, what must the claimant prove in two areas

Answer 1

Causation in law
And
Causation in fact

Question 2

Causation in law

Answer 2

Damage must not be too remote from the negligence

Question 3

Causation in fact

Answer 3

Requires evidence of a direct casual link between negligence and damage and casual link cannot have been broken

Question 4

3 questions to ask yourself on causation and whether damage is applicable.

Answer 4

Did the breach cause the damage?

Was the chain of causation broken?

Was the damage too remote?

Question 5

What is the basic ‘but for’ test

Answer 5

Would the claimant still have suffered a loss if it wasn’t for the defendants negligent act.

No loss, def liable. Loss, def not liable.

Question 6

Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington hospital (Barnet)

Answer 6

Arsenic poisoning. Dr didn’t examine patient but held not to be liable because patient would’ve died anyway.

Question 7

Rebuttal to Barnet

Answer 7

Gouldsmith- failed to refer her to a specialist which lead to loss of her hand.

Question 8

Greg v Scott

Answer 8

Numerical approach is necessary to allow the court to establish whether deterioration of a condition was inevitable. If inevitable there’s no claim

Question 9

Indivisible injury

Answer 9

Claimant must prove that harm was more probably than not using but for test (less than 50% no claim). Wilsher v essex area health authority

Question 10

Divisible injury

Answer 10

If a material contribution has been made the defendant will be liable. Bonnington castings ltd v wardlaw

Question 11

Material increase risk test - what is owed by the defendant in industrial disease

Answer 11

McGhee- remove the requirement that the claimant prove on the balance of probabilities, the defendant did in fact cause the harm claimed.

Question 12

Mesothelioma special rules

Answer 12

It is difficult to establish which exposure to asbestos caused the illness.

Extensive time delay in the illness becoming apparent

Question 13

Fairchild v Glenhaven

Answer 13

Claimant must prove that one employer has materially increased the risk of them contracting disease. That employer can then attempt to recover from other employers in the past.

Question 14

Baker v Willoughby

Answer 14

If claimant is injured a second time, they can seek damages for their entire life time if the first injury affected their enjoyment of life from the get go, not just up till the second injury.

Question 15

Jobling v Associated dairies

Answer 15

Claimant was only awarded damages for first injury as the second injury was inevitable and the damages would have given the claimant betterment instead of putting him in the position he started in. (Back injury then back disease case).

Question 16

Baker / Jobbking differences

Answer 16

Baker applies if second act was deliberately caused

Jobling applies but if the second injury is attributable to a natural cause like disease

Question 17

Causation - Novus Actus Interveniens

Answer 17

A new intervening act

Question 18

Novus Actus Interveniens 3 Types

Answer 18

Nature

Third party act

Act of the claimant

Question 19

Non Novus Actus Interveniens events which change negligence

Answer 19

A third parties act- maybe become another defendant.

Non intervening act by the claimant

Question 20

Intervening act of nature

Answer 20

Must be reasonable foreseeable

Knightly v John’s

Treatment for injury will not reduce the defendants liability to pay damages

Webb v Barclays Bank and Portsmouth hospital

Question 21

Intervening act if the claimant

Answer 21

Where the claimant contributed to their own injury
Sayers v Harlow

A claimant who has already suffered harm must take care not to worsen the situation
McKew

Question 22

Causation in law - remoteness test

Answer 22

Wagon Mound

Would a reasonable person have foreseen the type or kind of damage that occurred when they acted negligently.

If no, as the injury is too remote. No damages will be awarded.

Question 23

The thin skull rule

Answer 23

Defendant must take the victim as he finds him.
Robinson v Post office
Had tetanus jab but allergic got brain injury. Employer liable because he employed him with the allergy.