Causation in Fact (multiple) Flashcards
McGhee v National Goal Board [1972]
In this case, the plaintiff worked in a brick kiln under
hot and dusty condition in which brick dust adhered to
his sweaty skin. There was no washing facilities and
after work, he cycled home everyday with his body still
in caked in brick dust. It was accepted that brick dust
could cause dermatitis.
The House of Lords held that the defendant was liable
for increasing the risk of dermatitis and this type of
damage had in fact occurred.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988]
Facts
An infant was delivered prematurely and shortly after was administered oxygen by a junior doctor, accidentally providing too much. The baby was later diagnosed with a retinal condition, which severely limited his sight. Five potential causes or factors were identified to explain the condition, four relating to his premature birth and the fifth being the junior doctor’s actions.
Issues
Whether the health authority for which the junior doctor worked could be held liable for his actions where it could not be definitively stated what the chief cause of the injury was. Moreover, should a junior doctor be held to the same professional standards as a fully qualified doctor. Further, should the burden of proof regarding the potential relationship between the negligent actions and the injuries fall to the claimant or the defendant.
Decision/Outcome
At first instance the Court found the defendant, Essex Area Health Authority, liable for the infant’s injuries, citing McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 as laying down the precedent that where there existed a plurality of possible causes, the burden fell to the defendant to prove that their actions had not been the but for or material cause of the injury.
The House of Lords subsequently allowed the defendant’s appeal and overturned the first instance judgment stating that whilst the health authority could be held liable for the junior doctor’s actions as junior doctors owed the same duty of care as a fully qualified doctor, the case of McGhee had been wrongly interpreted at first instance; regardless of the number of potential causes of injury, it always falls to the claimant to establish the likelihood of causation.
