Tort - General Negligence - Causation Cases

Question 1

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

Answer 1

Factual Causation - “But For Test”

But for D’s breach of duty, would the harm to C have occurred? If yes, the claim will fail. If no, factual causation will be established.

Question 2

Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority

Answer 2

Factual Causation - but for test - BoP

C fell out of tree and was treated negligently - 75% chance of condition happening without D’s intervention. C must show on the balance of probabilities that the harm suffered was caused by D.

Question 3

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw Ltd

Answer 3

Factual Causation - Material contribution D negligently exposed C to dust - led to disease

Where harm suffered by C has several causes, C only has to demonstrate that D’s breach materially contributed to the harm. Doesn’t have to prove on BoP that D was sole cause.

Question 4

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services

Answer 4

Factual Causation - Material increase in risk - Mesothelioma

In mesothelioma cases, the court will hold each employer in breach of duty liable for materially increasing the claimant’s risk of harm. Because mesothelioma is an invisible injury, each D will be liable in full.

Question 5

Sienkiewicz v Greif

Answer 5

Factual causation - material increase in risk approach limitation

Material increase in risk approach should be limited to cases of scientific uncertainty - mesothelioma being the only such case atm.

Question 6

Holtby v Bringham and Cowan (Hull) Ltd

Answer 6

Factual Causation - Divisible injuries

If a court has evidence enabling it to divide injury suffered by C, it will apportion damages accordingly; asbestosis is a divisible injury.

Question 7

Rahman v Aerose Ltd

Answer 7

Intervening acts by 3rd party

If a court has evidence enabling it to divide injury suffered by C, it will apportion damages accordingly; psychiatric injury is divisible. Medical negligence will rarely break the chain of causation unless grossly negligent - may break the chain.

Question 8

Scott v Shephard

Answer 8

Acts of instinct will not break the chain of events.

Question 9

Knightley v Johns

Answer 9

Blocked tunnel - police car driving against the traffic

The negligent intervention of a third pary will break the chain when it is unforeseeable.

Question 10

Rouse v Squires

Answer 10

Multiple lorry crash

The negligent intervention of a third party will not break the chain when it is foreseeable.

Question 11

Lamb v Camden London Borough Council

Answer 11

D negligently damaged C’s house, while unoccupied, squatters damaged house

Reckless or intentional acts will break the chain if unforeseeable.

Question 12

Stansbie v Troman

Answer 12

Decorator left house unlocked - thief stole diamond bracelet.

Reckless or intentional acts will not break the chain if foreseeable.

Question 13

McKew v Holland

Answer 13

D’s negligence had weakened C’s leg - C descended stairs with no handrail and fell. D not liable as C unreasonable.

Acts by C will break chain of causation if entirely unreasonable.

Question 14

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd

Answer 14

C injured neck due to D negligence, C fitted with collar which made it difficult to wear glasses, consequently fell down stairs.

Intervening acts by C will not break the chain where they are reasonable.

Question 15

Cork v Kirby

Answer 15

Factual Causation

But for test

Question 16

Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd

Answer 16

Acts of a third party - must be unforeseeable and unreasonable to break the chain of causation

Question 17

Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd

Answer 17

Courts will take into account claimants trying to live their life post-injury when consideriong acts of the claimant with regards to causation.