Factual and Legal Causation Flashcards
What is the general rule for factual causation?
The general rule is the ‘but-for’ test, as established in Barnett.
What does the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 address?
It establishes the principle of joint and several liability.
What is the significance of Bonnington in material contribution to harm?
Indivisible injury (Single cumulative harm) - It established that more than de minimis contribution to harm is sufficient for FULL liability.
What does Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd address?
Asbestos case causing mesothelioma. 5 employers held joint and severally liable. Now only applied to mesothelioma, followed by compensation act.
What was the ruling in Gregg v Scott regarding loss of chance?
The House of Lords ruled that you cannot sue for a reduction in chance of survival if it was already below 50%.
What is the principle of legal causation established in Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd?
- C slipped at work, injured his back and lost earnings
⁃ Supervening event: Subsequently diagnosed with pre-existing spinal condition - D was liable for partial loss of earnings (quantum damages)
⁃ Application of thin-skill rule, wanted to compensate victim but not excessively.
What did Corr v IBC Vehicles establish about intervening acts?
⁃ C’s husband left disfigured after accident at work
⁃ He Developed depression and killed himself
Suicide was not considered an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, since it was not a completely voluntary and conscious act.
What does Wagon Mound (No 1) state about remoteness of damage?
The type of damage must be foreseeable.
What is the scope of the duty approach in Meadows v Khan?
It focuses on whether the injury suffered is one that the defendant was supposed to prevent.
What did Holmes v Poeton Holdings Ltd say liability?
Divisible harm over time/multiple sources - D only liable for the portion they caused.
How did Sienkiewicz v Greif expand Fairchild?
Extended Fairchild to single-defendant cases where background (non-tortious) risk also exists.
What did Zurich Insurance v International Energy Group Ltd say about insurers liability?
Tort liability is risk-based, insurance liability is policy-based.
Reinforces full recovery for claimants (via insurers) even in proportionate liability tort cases.
What did Baker v Willoughby decide about supervening events?
⁃ C Crossing road
⁃ Car hit his leg
⁃ D was primarily responsible
⁃ C sued, just before case got hearing, C was shot in his leg, and leg had to be amputated
⁃ D argued that he shouldn’t be liable for ongoing suffering given that injury was to a leg that ended up being amputated
⁃ When there are two accidents that are consecutive and contribute to the same injury, the original defendant would be liable for the overall injury.
What was decided in Gray v Thames Trains?
⁃ C suffered injuries and PTSD from negligence in a train incident
⁃ Thames trains held liable.
⁃ C, 2 years later, because of his PTSD, killed the pedestrian.
⁃ Plead guilty to manslaughter by diminished responsibility.
⁃ Illegality defence applied, no damages.
- Good law since it is still Patel compliant, confirmed in Henderson
- Incarcerated person sues for loss of earnings, apply Gray
What did McKew v Holland Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd say about intervening acts?
⁃ C injured at work by original employers
⁃ Lost control of his left leg
⁃ Was walking down stairs holding onto his daughters hand
⁃ Felt his leg give away, jumped, fractured his ankle
⁃ Was employer liable?
⁃ Held: no, his own conduct broke the chain since he acted unreasonably
What did Lamb v Camden say about intervening events?
- Squatters moved in during repairs
⁃ Caused damage to property - Were they liable for squatters
⁃ Held: not liable for damages caused by squatters
How do we reconcile Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd (Wincanton Logistics Ltd with McKew v Holland Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd?
C injured his leg and had it amputated due to D employer’s negligence
C tried to fill his car with petrol despite being handicapped, tripped and fell and became wheelchair bound
Claimant took precautions and did not act unreasonably, therefore chain not broken and defendant liable.
What did Smith v Leech Brain & Co say about remoteness?
Thin-Skull (kind of) rule applies. Once some physical harm is foreseeable, you’re liable for all the physical harm that follows, even if it’s unusually severe.
What did Hughes v Lord Advocate say about remoteness? (with facts)
Child explored unattended manhole; paraffin lamp fell, vapor exploded.
Court held: Burns were foreseeable, even if the exact mechanism (explosion) was not. Foreseeability of type of harm is enough — not its precise form or sequence.
How did Tremain v Pike limit remoteness principle?
While rats and general disease might be foreseeable, Weil’s disease specifically was too rare/unusual to be foreseeable. Court took a restrictive view of what counts as foreseeable “type” of harm. Seen as overly narrow after future cases.
How did Jolley v Sutton clarify the remoteness principle?
Reaffirms Hughes — precise accident isn’t the test, only that a general kind of injury is foreseeable. Especially when children are involved, foreseeability is generously interpreted.
What did Lagden v O’Connor say about impecuniosity?
Impecuniosity = The claimant doesn’t have the financial resources to afford mitigation in the “normal” (cheapest) way. If the claimant can prove they were impecunious, the law won’t expect a person to mitigate a loss they can’t afford.
What did Chester say about coincidental losses?
Surgeon failed to warn C of a small (1–2%) risk of paralysis, which then materialised. The operation wasn’t negligently performed — the risk was inherent to the procedure. C said she would have had procedure on another day by another doctor if she knew of the risks. Causation made out (controversially). Duty to inform of risk.
How did Gail Marie Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust explain Chester?
Chester is not a general exception to causation. It applies only in special autonomy-based contexts.
