Legal Causation

Question 1

Re Polemis [1921]

Answer 1

Pre Legal Causation
Liability for ANY DIRECT DAMAGE THAT IS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE.
Need not be foreseeable, just pass the factual causation stage (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee.)

In case: stevedores liable for negligent fall of plank of wood which ignited ship etc. - damage was a direct but for cause but not foreseeable - liability imposed nonetheless.

Question 2

THE WAGON MOUND (No. 1) [1961]

Answer 2

OVERRULED RE POLEMIS:

Factual causation not sufficient.
ACTIONABLE DAMAGE MUST BE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE.

Question 3

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]

Answer 3

Held; if you can foresee the TYPE of damage, then liability will be founded for the ENTIRE EXTENT of the damage that the TYPE of damage foreseen causes.

(Case - workers on manhole - paraffin lanterns - boy falls in hole - severe burns after explosion - as damage of the TYPE caused by burns from such lanterns was foreseeable, liability for ALL damage of that type.)

Question 4

Bradford v Robinson Rentals [1967]

Answer 4

Reinforced Hughes v Lord Advocate

(Frostbite case)

Liability for entire EXTENT of damage caused by TYPE of damage foreseen.

Question 5

Corr v IBC Vehicles [2008]

Answer 5

Reinforced Jolley v Sutton LBC

Tortfeasor who foresaw some kind of personal injury need not foresee the precise form which the damage might manifest itself.

Employer’s breach - severe physical injury - depression - suicide.

SUICIDE IS AN UNUSUAL, BUT NOT UNCOMMON MANIFESTATION OF DEPRESSION.

Question 6

Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000]

Answer 6

H of L moved away from approach in Hughes v Lord Advocate and Bradford v Robinson Rentals.
Held; AS LONG AS SOME GENERAL PERSONAL INJURY OF SOME DESCRIPTION CAN BE FORESEEN, EXACT TYPE/EXTENT OF INJURY IS IMMATERIAL.

Council failed to remove derelict boat (in breach) - foresaw some kind of injury - 2 boys used car lifting jack to lift it up - collapsed - C - paraplegic.
LIABLE despite arguing that damage of this severe type and extent was not foreseeable.

(Economic influences, per LORD HOFFMAN: - would have cost D council no more to remove boat than to put safeguards as obliged by their DoC.)

Question 7

Smith v Leech Brain [1962]

Answer 7

Authority: Eggshell skull principle in tort (D takes V as he finds him) is UNAFFECTED BY WAGON MOUND.

(Case - employer’s breach - C burnt lip - cancer developed in 3 years - cells already in pre-malignant condition)
Cancer was a mere extension of the burn.

Question 8

Tremain v Pike [1969]

Answer 8

D owned rat farm
Despite lack of breach - would’ve failed at legal causation stage as infection by rat urine - extremely rare in humans - TOO REMOTE.
Would have been liable for rat bites/fever, but rare disease NOT.

Question 8

Robinson v Post Office [1974]

Answer 8

Reinforces Smith v Leech Brain

D’ neg - slipped on ladder - doctor - tetanus injection - failed to administer test dose and got rare illness - would’ve happened anyway, so doctor not liable (FC) as did not contribute to the harm (Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw)

Employer - liable for later rare illness - WAS FORESEEABLE THAT C WOULD REQUIRE MEDICAL ATTENTION AND NEED FOR TETANUS JAB.

ONCE THE GENERAL TYPE OF DAMAGE IS FORESEEN, D MUST TAKE C AS HE FINDS HIM.

Question 9

Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government [1952]

Answer 9

AUTHORITY: Novus Actus Interveniens - act of nature

Ship collision - D accepted liability - took to NY for cheaper repairs - heavy storm caused more serious damage - took extra 40 days to repair. Claimed for loss of profits for extra 40 days out of service.
D’s breach IS BUT FOR CAUSE -BUT HELD; NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS.

Question 11

Lamb v Camden LBC

Answer 11

Authority: DELIBERATE ACT OF A THIRD PARY = NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS.

(burst water main + squatters case)

Question 12

Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970]

Answer 12

Acts of borstal boys held NOT to be novus actus interveniens

RF.

Question 13

Knightley v Johns [1982]

Answer 13

AUTHORITY: NEGLIGENT ACTS OF THIRD PARTIES = NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS.
Distinguished from Lamb v Camden LBC (deliberate acts)
D1 - initial car accident
D2 - police - negligent in closure of tunnel etc.

Held; if whole sequence of events after initial tort are RF, none of the events that follow can be regarded as NAI.
Police negligence was clearly not RF, so NAI.

Whilst negligent acts of third parties = NAI, C of A added that mere mistakes made by 3rd parties are NOT NAIs - “can be expected of human beings in a crisis”

Question 13

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets

Answer 13

Distinguished from McKew v Holland…

Neck injury (by D’s breach)

C’s later actions NOT NAI - initial injuries prevented proper fulfilment of everyday activities.

Question 14

McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd

Answer 14

Scottish but authoritative in E/W

EXAMPLE OF ACTS OF THE CLAIMANT - NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS
Where act of claimant was itself unreasonable.
(C - injured by D’s breach - later - stairs - jumped down 10 stairs to avoid falling or something - unreasonable - novus actus - D not liable for additional damage sustained, despite the fact that there was ‘but for’ causation.

Question 15

Spencer v Wincanton Holdings

Answer 15

Elaborated on McKew

Standard of ‘unreasonableness’ of claimant’s act must be VERY HIGH to constitute novus actus interveniens.

Question 16

Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Answer 16

(Suicide risk inmate left in cell where hatch made it possible for him to kill himself)

• Lack of causative link would negate the very purpose of the DoC.
• Established an exception to the rule that deliberate acts = NAI.
• -> Where there is a DoC to prevent self-harm - rare cases - prison officers have complete control over claimant

Question 17

Corr v IBC Vehicles

Answer 17

Suicide will be NAI IF IT IS A FREE, VOLUNTARY AND INFORMED DECISION,

BUT, as in instant case, if borne from depression - it is NOT free, voluntary etc.
Thus held not to be a NAI.