WS 2 Casuation and Pure Economic Loss 33-79

Question 1

What are the two parts that make up causation?

Answer 1

Factual Causation and Legal Causation.

Question 2

What is the diffrence between factual causation and legal causation?

Answer 2

Factual causation is whether the breach of duty was the cause of the harm - But for the defendants negligence would the claimant have suffered the harm?

Legal causation is where the harm was not too remote - Is the harm suffered too remote? Has there been a break in the chain of causation? are there any policy justifications?

Question 3

How is factual causation proved?

Answer 3

The claimant must prove the defendant’s actions caused ‘in fact; the claimants harm, using the ‘But for’ test.

Question 4

What are the 3 situations in which the ‘but for test’ cannot be used

Answer 4

1. Multiple Potential Causes - (For example a sickness from asbetos, but there was multiple exposures)
2. Multiple Sufficent Causes - (Where both causes caused the harm according to the but for test, but which one should be liable for the harm)
3. Lost Chance

Question 5

What could happen if there were multiple potential causes of harm in an asbestos case?

i.e 4 negligent employers that could have caused the harm, but it is unclear in which employment mesothelioma was developed?

Answer 5

In the case of Fairchild, reiteratied in the Compensation Act 2006, found all companies joint and severally liable.

Question 6

What is the effect of the claimant’s illness when dealing with asbestos claims?

Answer 6

If the claimaint suffers from mesothelioma, the compensation act of 2006 / fairchild case (joint and several liability) is followed.

If the claimant suffers from lung cancer, then barker is the position. Namely that the claimant can claim from any liable employer, but the damage will be apportionated relating to how long the claimant worked for that employer.

Question 7

What is the rule when dealing with multiple sufficient causes?

Answer 7

When dealing with questions involving consecutive causes of harm, all passing the but for test, the original defendant will be responsible for the harm.

if there is an unrelated cause of subsequent harm which does not pass the but for test, the original defendant will not be liable for the subsequent harm - ie if the second harm would of happened irrespective of the first harm .

Question 8

What is ‘loss of chance’ in relation to causation? give an example.

Answer 8

A boy went to the doctors with an injured hip. at that time, the doctors failed to pick up an underlying health issue.

If that underlying health issue was discovered then, there would have been a 25% chance that the boy could have received treatment and been cured, but as they did not, the boy became very sick.

Are the doctors liable for a ‘loss of chance’?

In these cases, the court will look at the balance of probailities. If the probability is less than 50%,then the court is unlikely to find for the claimant.

Question 9

What is the test for legal causation?

Answer 9

That the harm suffered was not too remote of a consequence of the defendants negligence.

Question 10

What is the test for remoteness?

Answer 10

Was the type/ kind of famage reasonably foreseeable at the time the breach of duty occurred?

Nb this is different to the extent of harm. For example, if it was reasonably foreseeable a fire could be caused, it makes no difference if one boat was burned or 100 boats were burned.

Question 11

What is the Eggshell rule?

Answer 11

Claimants must be taken as they are found. This means the claimant pre-existing health is no defense to a breach of duty suffered by the claimant.

It does not matter that the claimant’s damage was worse owing to an existing condition.

Question 12

What is Novus Actus Interveniens?

Answer 12

Intervening acts that break the chain of causation and render the defendant not liable for the claimants harm.

Question 13

What are the 3 grounds which can break the chain of causation? (Novus Actus Interveniens)

Answer 13

1. The Claimants Act.
2. A Third Partys Act
3. A Seperate / Natural Act.

Question 14

When will an intervening act always fail to break the chain?

Answer 14

The intervening act must not be reasnably foreseeable.

Question 15

Give an example of a claimaints act breaking the chain of causation

Answer 15

The defendant suffered a leg injury due to the defendants negligence. He attempted to descent steep stairs with no handrail without assistance and injured himself further.

The claimaints act of doing this broke the chain of causation and the defendant was not liable for further injury.

Question 16

Given an example of a third party act breaking the chain of causation.

Answer 16

A man caused a road traffic accident. A police officer drove against the flow of traffic and was injured.

The man who caused the road traffic accident is not liable for the police officer as him doing so was negligent.

Question 17

Give an example of a seperate or natural act breaking the chain of causation?

Answer 17

the defendants ship was damaged, and so travelled to a port to repair it.

When traveling to the port, there was a storm which damaged the boat further.

the original defendant would not be liable for the further damage as a natural act broke the chain of causation.

Question 18

What is pure economic loss?

Answer 18

Pure economic loss is only financial loss resulting from the negligent act. Where there is only economic loss, there is no claim in tort

Question 19

What is consequental economic loss?

Answer 19

Consequentlal economic loss is financial loss sustained due to another harm caused by negligence. Where financial loss is a result of another harm, the loss can be recovered.