Causation + Remoteness Cases Flashcards
What is this case + Principle?
Doctor sent claimant home without treating them. The claimant would have died anyway, with treatment or without.
Case: Barnett v Kensington 1968
Principle: Factual causation + But For Test
In this case, since C would have died anyway, D wasn’t liable because but for the defendants negligence of not treating C, C would have still suffered this harm. So D didn’t cause it.
What case is this + Principle?
A premature baby had underdeveloped lungs which meant doctors had to give oxygen support. Too much was given, making the baby partially blind.
Case: Wilsher v Essex 1988
Principle: Factual Causation- All or nothing approach- Ds negligence has to cause more than 50% harm
In this case, there were 5 causes of harm, there was 20% chance that it was doctors fault- this is less than 50% therefore no factual causation here
What case is this + principle?
C developed a lung disease which was from breathing silica dust in his work place. There was both guilty and innocent dust so it wasn’t possible which dust caused the disease. However this disease occurred due to gradual exposure. Court said since it caused the harm, this was sufficent for causation
Case: Bonnington v Wardlaw 1956
Principle: Material contribution to harm- this is where there may be multiple potential causes of the harm, may be in a cumulative condition
What is this case + Principle?
C got dermatitis (non cumulative condition) from brick dust at work. There was innocent and guilty dust- D cant prove which one caused it (but for test fails). Couldn’t prove that it materially contributed to the harm as it was non cumulative.
Case: McGhee v National Coal Board [1972]
Principle: the court said Ds negligence had materially contributed to the risk of harm rather than the direct harm itself- this was sufficient
Material contribution to risk of harm - used for multiple causes of harm- but non cumulative conditions only.
What is this case + Principle?
3 Cs developed mesothelioma (fatal lung disease). They were negligently exposed to asbestos over numerous jobs. This wasn’t cumulative and could have developed even after single exposure. Wasn’t possible to pinpoint which employer caused the disease.
Case: Fairchild v Glenhaven [2002]
Principle: in this case, although the but for test failed, HOL saw this as an unjust outcome and applied the material contribution to risk approach (McGhee). All of the defendants were held liable
So Fairchild is where there would be material contribution to the risk of harm- but can’t pinpoint which exact D it would so it would hold several defendants liable
What case is this + Principle?
The Fairchild exception is only applicable to any disease that has the unusual features of mesothelioma
Case: Zurich v International Energy Group Ltd 2015
Principle- Expanding the but for test. Fairchild exception is only to be used in rare circs
What case is this + Principle?
Splitting damages proportionately between the defendants according to how negligent they were
Case: Barker v Corus [2006]
Principle: Apportioning damages for Fairchild Exception
What case is this + Principle?
C had back surgery and got spinal condition. Doctor not negligent but didn’t inform C of the risk. If she knew she would have gone somewhere else. But still would have got condition. So, But for test failed but It was an unjust outcome so court said the injury was within the scope of duty to warn of material risk so enough to establish causation
Case: Chester v Afshar 2004
Principle: Expansion of But For test- Informed consent cases
What case is this + Principle?
Negligent treatment of hip injury after boy falls out of tree- later becomes paralysed. Court held that causation couldn’t be established because there was a more than 70% chance of paralysis happening anyway
Case: Hotson v East Berkshire AHA [1987]
Principle: Expansion of But For test- Loss of chance cases- C wanting to recover in negligence for loss of chance in relation to their health- this isn’t very successful
eg saying they could have survived had there been no negligence.
What is this case + Principle?
D negligently spilt oil in Sydney harbor and eventually it caught fire and caused damage to the claimants property
It was held that damage by oil was reasonably foreseeable but not by fire so this was remote
There was no liability
Case: Wagon Mound No 1 1961
Principle: Wagon Mound Test
Was the type of damage suffered by C reasonable foreseeable at the time the breach occurred?
What is this case + principle?
two kids repairing boat, the boat fell on kid causing injury. HOL said kids were medaling with boat which had the risk of some physical injury- they said this was reasonably foreseeable and harm not too remote
Case: Jolley v Sutton 2000
Principle: when looking at type of harm, we use foreseeability test and see if what they were doing had some ribs of physical injury.
What is this case + principle?
C got burnt on his lip due to Ds negligence. C had a precancerous condition, upon burn it became cancerous and he died. Since the type of damage was reasonably foreseeable, D was liable for the full extent of the harm even though cancer was not foreseeable
Case: Smith v Leech Brain 1962
Principle: Thin Skull Rule- D must take the victim as they find them
What is this case + principle?
C got back injury, led to reduced earning potential. Before suing D he got back disease and was going to blame this because of D. HOL said D only had to pay damages up until the point of when disease started. So damages were reduced accordingly
C cannot claim for the “Vicissitudes of life”- things happen to everyone you cant blame someone else for something that was going to happen anyway
Case: Jobling v Associated Dairies 1982
Principle: Supervening Acts - consecutive but unconnected acts may occur causing greater harm to C than Ds negligence.
Principle- can’t claim for anything and everything
What is this case + principle?
council caused some damage to Cs house. But then squatters moved in and caused more damage. This broke the chain- making council not liable
Case: Lamb v Camden 1981
Principle: Remoteness- intervening acts- deliberate wrongful acts done by third parties.
What is this case + principle?
D caused road accident by negligent driving. Police officer didn’t close tunnel, thus not stopping traffic. Sent another officer on bike to stop traffic- he suffered an accident- this was a negligent act- D wont not be liable for this – this was not a natural consequence of Ds negligence but polices
Case: Knightley v Johns [1982]
Principle: Remoteness- Intervening acts- negligent acts committed by third parties
