Legal Causation Flashcards
What is the function of legal causation in negligence claims?
A) To determine whether the breach factually caused the harm
B) To assess whether an intervening act breaks the chain of causation
C) To determine whether a duty of care exists
D) To establish the foreseeability of harm
B) To assess whether an intervening act breaks the chain of causation
Explanation:
Legal causation ensures that a defendant is only liable for harm directly linked to their breach, except where an intervening act breaks the chain of causation.
When does an act of God or natural event break the chain of causation?
A) When it is foreseeable and preventable
B) When it is an exceptional and unforeseeable event
C) When it contributes to the claimant’s loss but was not caused by the defendant
D) When it worsens the claimant’s injury but does not create new harm
B) When it is an exceptional and unforeseeable event
Explanation:
An act of God must be exceptional and unforeseeable to break the chain of causation, as seen in Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government (1952).
A driver negligently hits a pedestrian. At the hospital, a doctor fails to detect internal bleeding, leading to further complications. Who is liable for the worsened condition?
A) The doctor alone, as they made the error
B) The driver, because medical negligence was a foreseeable consequence
C) The pedestrian, for not noticing their own symptoms
D) The hospital, because they employed the doctor
B) The driver, because medical negligence was a foreseeable consequence
Explanation:
A foreseeable medical error does not break the chain of causation. The original defendant remains liable, as in Wright v Cambridge Medical Group (2011).
In which situation will a third-party act break the chain of causation?
A) If the third party’s act was highly unforeseeable
B) If the third party was a professional acting negligently
C) If the third party’s act contributed in any way to the harm
D) If the third party had a duty of care to the claimant
A) If the third party’s act was highly unforeseeable
Explanation:
A highly unforeseeable act by a third party breaks the chain of causation, as in Knightley v Johns (1982).
When does medical negligence break the chain of causation?
A) If the negligence worsens the injury
B) If the negligence is a foreseeable consequence of the initial injury
C) If the medical negligence is gross and egregious
D) If the medical staff fail to fully cure the claimant
C) If the medical negligence is gross and egregious
Explanation:
Medical negligence rarely breaks the chain, but if it is so gross and egregious that it is unforeseeable, it becomes a novus actus interveniens.
A factory worker is injured due to employer negligence, leading to mobility issues. Weeks later, they attempt to run up a steep staircase without using the handrail and fall, worsening their injury. Who is liable for the second injury?
A) The employer, because the worker’s injury was caused by their negligence
B) The employer and the worker, with liability shared equally
C) The manufacturer of the staircase, for failing to make it safer
D) The worker, because their actions were highly unreasonable and broke the chain of causation
D) The worker, because their actions were highly unreasonable and broke the chain of causation
Explanation:
A highly unreasonable act by the claimant, such as ignoring safety measures, can break the chain of causation, as in McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (1969).
A security guard negligently leaves a warehouse door unlocked overnight. A thief enters and steals expensive equipment. Who is liable for the loss?
A) The security guard, because their negligence created the opportunity for theft
B) The warehouse owner, because they should have hired better security
C) The thief, because their criminal act broke the chain of causation
D) The insurance company, for failing to compensate quickly
C) The thief, because their criminal act broke the chain of causation
Explanation:
A highly unforeseeable criminal act usually breaks the chain of causation, shifting liability to the thief rather than the negligent security guard.
A factory negligently stores chemicals, causing a minor gas leak. Later, an unrelated earthquake occurs, leading to a massive explosion from the same chemicals. Who is liable for the explosion?
A) The factory, because they failed to store chemicals safely
B) The government, for failing to regulate hazardous material storage
C) The earthquake, because it was an unforeseeable natural event that broke the chain of causation
D) The factory and the earthquake, as they both contributed equally
C) The earthquake, because it was an unforeseeable natural event that broke the chain of causation
Explanation:
A natural disaster is an act of God, which can break the chain of causation if it is unforeseeable and extraordinary, as in Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government (1952).
A cyclist is hit by a speeding car. While recovering, they ignore medical advice and attempt extreme mountain biking, leading to a severe secondary injury. Who is liable for the second injury?
A) The cyclist, because their actions were highly unreasonable and broke the chain of causation
B) The driver, because the initial injury led to the cyclist’s decision
C) The hospital, for failing to warn the cyclist strongly enough
D) The cycling gear manufacturer, for not providing better protective equipment
A) The cyclist, because their actions were highly unreasonable and broke the chain of causation
Explanation:
A claimant’s highly unreasonable act, such as recklessly ignoring medical advice, breaks the chain of causation, as in McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (1969).
A chef suffers a minor burn at work due to employer negligence. Weeks later, while cooking at home, they suffer a much worse burn due to careless handling of oil. Who is liable for the severe injury?
A) The chef, because their careless act broke the chain of causation
B) The employer, because the initial burn contributed to their condition
C) The gas stove manufacturer, for failing to include better safety features
D) The hospital, for not treating the first burn effectively
A) The chef, because their careless act broke the chain of causation
Explanation:
If a claimant’s independent action significantly worsens their condition, they break the chain of causation, and the original defendant is no longer liable.
