Negligence- Causation Flashcards
What is the standard test for factual causation in negligence?
The standard test is the but-for test, which asks whether the claimant’s harm would have occurred but for the defendant’s breach.
What must the claimant prove to establish factual causation?
The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s breach caused the harm, meaning it is more likely than not that the breach led to the damage.
In the case of Barnett, why was factual causation not proven?
In Barnett, the hospital’s breach did not cause the claimant’s death because, even without the breach, the claimant would have died from arsenic poisoning.
What is the material contribution test, and when is it used?
The material contribution test is used when multiple causes contribute to the harm. The defendant’s actions must make a significant contribution to the claimant’s damage, even if it isn’t the sole cause.
How are damages apportioned in cases involving multiple defendants, like asbestos exposure?
Damages can be apportioned between multiple defendants based on the time the claimant was exposed to each defendant’s harmful actions. For example, if two employers contributed equally, each defendant would be liable for 50% of the damages.
How does apportionment of blame work in cases with indivisible injuries, like a road traffic accident?
In cases of indivisible injuries, each defendant is fully liable for the claimant’s injury, but the court can apportion blame (e.g., one defendant 90%, the other 10%). The claimant can claim 100% of damages from either defendant.
What is meant by ‘breaking the chain of causation’?
‘Breaking the chain of causation’ occurs when an intervening act (such as the actions of a third party or the claimant themselves) disrupts the connection between the defendant’s breach and the harm.
When will an instinctive act of a third party not break the chain of causation?
An instinctive act of a third party, such as the claimant acting to defend themselves, will not break the chain of causation.
Can the negligent acts of a third party break the chain of causation?
Yes, if the negligent acts of a third party were not reasonably foreseeable, they may break the chain of causation. Reckless or intentional acts of a third party generally will break the chain.
How does the claimant’s own actions affect causation?
If the claimant’s actions after the defendant’s breach are unreasonable, they may be responsible for any additional harm suffered.
What is the remoteness test in negligence?
The remoteness test asks whether the type of damage caused by the defendant’s breach was reasonably foreseeable. If it was not, the defendant may not be liable.
What exceptions to the remoteness test may help the claimant?
Two exceptions are:
1. The exact way harm occurred doesn’t need to be foreseeable, as long as the type of harm (e.g., a burn from an explosion) was.
2. The eggshell skull rule, meaning the defendant is liable for the full extent of the claimant’s injury, even if it is more severe than expected due to the claimant’s pre-existing conditions.
What does the eggshell skull rule mean in negligence cases?
The eggshell skull rule means that the defendant must take the claimant as they find them. If the claimant has a pre-existing condition (e.g., an allergy), the defendant is liable for the full extent of the injury, even if it is more severe than would be reasonably foreseeable.
