General Negligence: Causation

Question 1

Baker v Willoughby

Answer 1

Ratio: The original defendant’s liability remains, even where further damage is caused.

Facts: The claimant was run over, damaging his leg. He was later shot in the same leg. The shooting did not remove the negligent driver’s liability.

Question 2

Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea Hospital

Answer 2

Ratio: Established the ‘but for’ test for factual causation - but for the defendant’s actions, would the outcome have happened?

Facts: A doctor failed to carry out a proper examination and the patient died of arsenic poisoning. However, it was shown that the patient would have died even if the poisoning had been detected.

Question 3

Cork v Kirby Maclean Ltd

Answer 3

Ratio: Confirmed the ‘but for’ test for factual causation.

Facts: A workman had an epileptic fit while working on a high platform with no guard rails and fell to his death. The employers did not know he had epilepsy.

Question 4

Dorset Yacht Co v Home Office

Answer 4

Ratio: A high degree of control over a third party can prevent their acts from breaking the chain.

Facts: A group of borstal boys under Home Office supervision escaped and damaged a yacht. The Home Office was found liable as they had a high degree of control over the boys.

Question 5

Fitzgerald v Lane and Patel

Answer 5

Ratio: Where there are multiple causes, the court can apportion damages.

Facts: The claimant crossed a road when he had a green man. He was hit by a car and knocked into the path of another car. Both were speeding and so both were held liable.

Question 6

Haynes v Harwood

Answer 6

Ratio: A rescuer who is injured whilst exposing themselves to danger during a rescue will not break the chain of causation from the individual who caused the danger. The person who caused the danger would still be liable for the rescuer’s injury unless the rescuer’s intervention was completely unforeseeable.

Facts: A policeman was injured catching a bolting horse.

Question 7

Humber Oil Terminal Trustees v Sivand

Answer 7

Ratio: If an event is reasonably foreseeable it will not break the chain of causation.

Facts: Sivand negligently damaged a seabed owned by Humber Oil. Humber Oil engaged a contractor to repair the seabed under a standard contract that would make Sivand liable for additional expenditure caused by unforeseen circumstances. The sea bed collapsed and the contractor lost a boat as a result.

Question 8

Jobling v Associated Dairies

Answer 8

Ratio: Where a tort and a non-tort combine, the defendant will be liable up until the non-tort, where his liability will end.

Facts: The claimant injured his back in a work accident. He later developed a separate, independent, back condition. The defendant employer was liable up until the second event occurred.

Question 9

Knightley v Johns

Answer 9

Ratio: Acts of third parties can break the chain of causation if they are unforeseeable and unconnected to the defendant’s earlier breach.

Facts: A traffic accident was followed by a negligent mishandling of the situation by a police officer which resulted in the death of another officer. Held that the policeman’s act broke the chain.

Question 10

McGhee v National Coal Board

Answer 10

Ratio: Liability was found on the basis of the ‘material increase in risk’ caused by the employer. If the breach materially increased the risk of the claimant’s injury, liability can be imposed.

Facts: The claimant contracted a severe skin disease as a result of him working with brick dust (non-tortious) and having nowhere to clean the brick dust off at the end of the day (tortious). Employer was held liable for failure to provide cleaning facilities.

Question 11

McKew v Holland

Answer 11

Ratio: A claimant’s own actions can break the chain of causation if they are unforeseeable and unreasonable.

Facts: A claimant with injured legs and hips climbed down steep concrete steps unaided. He felt his leg giving way so jumped down ten steps, sustaining fractures. This broke the chain of causation.

Question 12

R v Jordan

Answer 12

Ratio: A medical act must be ‘palpably wrong’ to break the chain of causation.

Facts: A stab victim died in hospital of pneumonia, probably caused by negligent treatment. He was given a drug after it was discovered that he was intolerant to it and was given abnormal amounts of intravenous fluid. This was held to be palpably wrong.

Question 13

Scott v Shepherd

Answer 13

Ratio: Where the third party acts instinctively, there will be no break in the chain of causation.

Facts: Shepherd threw a firecracker into a market, which was thrown away instinctively by a market trader. It hit Scott and exploded. The market trader’s actions were instinctive and so did not break the chain.

Question 14

The Oropesa

Answer 14

Ratio: If the act of a third party is foreseeable, there will be no break in the chain of causation.

Facts: A ship negligently crashed into another. The other ship’s captain was killed attempted to climb aboard the negligent ship to discuss the crash. This was considered to be a foreseeable action.

Question 15

Wilsher v Essex HA

Answer 15

Ratio: Where multiple independent causes exist, the tortious cause must be the most likely on the balance of probabilities and the onus of proof is not he claimant.

Facts: A junior doctor gave too much oxygen to a premature baby. The baby went blind but it was unclear whether, on the balance of probabilities, it was the excess oxygen which had caused this, or another cause.

Question 16

Allied Maple v Simmons and SImmons

Answer 16

Ratio: Loss of chance can only be claimed for where it is a real and substantial chance, not a speculative one. Loss of chance is only allowed for cases involving pure economic loss.

Facts: The defendant failed to advise on a risk during a company takeover. The claimant sued for loss chance.

Question 17

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

Answer 17

Ratio: It is only necessary to foresee some harm, not the specific type.

Facts: The claimant was a van driver who had to drive long distances in a van with no heating and a broken window. He contracted frostbite. It was held that because some form of cold-related injury was foreseeable, it was not necessary to foresee the exact nature of the injury.

Question 18

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Answer 18

Ratio: There is no need to foresee the exact way in which the damage occurs.

Facts:Workmen left oil lamps around a hole in the road. An 8 year old boy knocked one over, which exploded, burning him severely. IT was foreseeable that the lamps may cause damage and so it was unnecessary to foresee the exact way in which the damage was caused.

Question 19

Lagden v O’Connor

Answer 19

Ratio: Established the ‘think-wallet rule’ - where the claimant’s impecuniosity exacerbated the damage caused, it can be claimed for.

Facts: After a car crash caused by the defendant’s negligence, the claimant could not afford a replacement car whilst his was being replaced. He sought to claim for the cost of hiring one.

Question 20

Margareson and Hancock v JW Roberts

Answer 20

Ratio: A wider view of foreseeability.

Facts: The defendant owned a factory. The claimants lived near the factory and had played there as children. They contracted mesothelioma from asbestos dust released by the factory. They were allowed to recover as it was foreseeable that harm would be caused to people living nearby.

Question 21

Smith v Leech Brain and Co

Answer 21

Ratio: Established the ‘thin-skull rule’ - a defendant must take a claimant as he finds him.

Facts: The claimant was burned as a result of negligent working conditions. The burn caused pre-existing cancerous cells to develop into cancer, which killed him. As the defendant could have foreseen the injury by burning, they were liable for the resulting death.

Question 22

The Wagon Mound (No.1)

Answer 22

Ratio: A claimant can recover for all damage that is reasonably foreseeable.

Facts: The defendant’s vessel negligently spilled oil into Sydney Harbour. Later, welding on another ship sparked and set fire to the oil. The fire caused damage to the wharf and other vessels.

Question 23

Tremain v Pike

Answer 23

Ratio: A narrow view of foreseeability.

Facts: The claimant worked on a farm and contracted Weil’s disease from interacting with things that had been urinated on by rats. Held that although injury from rat bites etc was foreseeable, this particular type of injury was not foreseeable.

Question 24

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals

Answer 24

Ratio: Once reasonable foreseeability is established, the defendant will be liable for the full extent of the damage caused.

Facts: the defendant failed to warn the claimant of the nature of the chemicals they were supplying. They were used in a way that caused an explosion. Failing to warn them was negligent and so they were liable for the full extent of the damage.

Question 25

Yorkshire Dale Steamship Co v Ministry of Transport

Answer 25

Ratio: ‘Causation is to be understood as by the man in the street, and not as either the scientist or the metaphysician would understand it’.

Question 26

Hotson v East Berkshire HA

Answer 26

Ratio: The loss of chance argument does not apply in personal injury or medical negligence cases.

Question 27

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw

Answer 27

Ratio: Introduced material contribution test - if breach can be proved to have materially contributed to a loss, the defendant can be liable. Note, a material contribution = more than negligible.

Facts: Claim for compensation in negligence for respiratory disease caused by exposure to dust at work. Only part of the exposure was tortious and so the but for test failed.

Question 28

Bailey v MoD

Answer 28

Ratio: Court are willing to apply the material contribution test in a wide range of situations.

Question 29

Dr Sido John v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust

Answer 29

Ratio: Material contribution test can be used in clinical negligence cases concerning multiple causes. The claimant must be able to establish that the defendant breached their duty and this materially contributed to the claimant’s injury.

Question 30

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd

Answer 30

Ratio: The court can depart from the ‘but for’ test int he interest of fairness.

Facts: Claimant had mesothelioma and it could not be established which employer had exposed him to asbestos. Court held additional exposure materially increased risk.

Question 31

Durham v BAI (Runoff) Ltd

Answer 31

Ratio: It is mesothelioma itself, rather than the risk of mesothelioma that forms the gist of the negligence action.

Question 32

Meah v McDreamer

Answer 32

Ratio: If later illness can be linked to the defendant’s breach there will be no break in the chain.

Question 33

Robinson v Post Office

Answer 33

Ratio: Courts are reluctant to find that medical treatment breaks the chain of causation.

Question 34

Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea HA

Answer 34

Ratio: Acts of the claimant will break the chain if unreasonable.

Question 35

Reeves v MPC

Answer 35

Ratio: Actions of the claimant will not be treated as breaking the chain of causation where the duty of care on the defendant requires them specifically to prevent the claimant taking such an action.

Facts: Police held liable for failure to prevent a prisoner committing suicide.