Tort | Negligence
Damage: Causation
Flash Card | Degree
Download bitsoflaw.orgbits of law
Damage: Causation
[Flash Card 1 of 4]
Factual causation: the 'but for' test
- factual causation: chain of causation / determined by but for test
- arsenic / but for D's breach would the harm to C have occurred? yes: D not factually liable / no: factual causation satisfied (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969])
- safety harness / V would not have worn / but for D breach V would have still died (Mc Williams (Cummings) v Arrol [1962])
Factual causation: proof
- C must prove: on the balance of probabilities harm caused by D's breach
- tree injuries / 25% chance P's condition improved by correct treatment / all or nothing approach:require more than 50% chance or not satisfy balance of probabilities (Hotson v East Berkshire HA [1987])
Factual causation: clinical negligence cases
- blind / 5 possible alternative causes / no factual causation: only 20% (Wilsher v Essex HA [1988])
- dr testified would not have carried out procedure even if attended & backed by medical professionals / D's negligence an omission so hypothetical but for test applied (Bolitho v City & Hackney HA [1998])
- loss of chance: lump/ 45% chance of recovery if not been misdiagnosed / all or nothing approach approved (Gregg v Scott [2005])
- courts cautious finding against medical professionals / policy issues: may affect willingness to treat / try pioneering new procedures / cost of medical care increase due to higher insurance
bits of law
Damage: Causation
[Flash Card 2 of 4]
Factual causation: multiple causes
- material contribution approach: determine causation where multiple causes contributed to C's harm
- dust swing grinders & hammer / Lord Reid:
.. [P] must make it appear at least that on a balance of probabilities the breach of duty caused or materially contributed to his injury...
(Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956]) - Waller LJ:
.. contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the 'but for' test is modified, and the claimant will succeed..
(Bailey v MOD [2008]) - dermatitis from dust / House of Lords: D's failure to provide onsite washing facilities material contribution to risk of injury & sufficient to prove factual causation (McGhee v National Coal Board [1973])
- modified but for test / C must establish D's negligence materially contributed: causing harm (Bonnington Castingsv Wardlaw [1956]) or risk of harm (McGhee v National Coal Board [1973])
Divisible injury
- divisible injury: condition made worse by a number of factors / different D's negligence contributing
- asbestos / cumulative condition / damages apportioned between D & other employers (tortfeasors) according to time C worked for each (Holtby v Brigham & Cowan [2000])
Indivisible injury
- indivisible injury: single injury / caused by more than one D's negligence / eg road traffic accident
- Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 / S1(1): Ds jointly & severally liable for full damages / S2(1): courts can apportion liability between Ds according to their share of responsibility
bits of law
Damage: Causation
[Flash Card 3 of 4]
Factual causation: recent developments
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003]
- facts: Cs developed mesothelioma / caused by asbestos exposure / working for several employers / medical evidence not show which liable
- held: CoA: lack of medical certainty means no factual causation / HoL: approved McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] / Ds materially contributed to risk of Cs contracting mesothelioma / indivisible injury / Ds jointly & severally liable
- criticised: weakening test / employers & insurers liable large claims / however provides full damages for Cs seriously harmed
Barker v Corus [2006]
- facts: Cs contracted mesothelioma / working for several employers / D only one still trading
- held: HoL (majority): liability for mesothelioma for risk of harm / therefore D's liability should be proportionate (to extent to which they contributed to risk: time they employed Cs) / risk divisible
- criticised: limiting Cs ability to receive damages / Compensation Act 2006 (effectively reversed decision for Cs suffering mesothelioma)
Factual causation: multiple injuries
- if C already suffered harm / subsequent D only liable to extent he makes C's harm worse
- re-spray car (Performance Cars v Abraham [1962]) / personal injuries (Rahman v Arearose [2001])
bits of law
Damage: Causation
[Flash Card 4 of 4]
Legal causation: intervening acts
- chain of causation may be broken by an intervening event: extrinsic events (nova causa interveniens) / independent act of someone other than D (novus actus interveniens)
Third party acts
- chain unbroken: if D is under legal duty to prevent that act
- thief / decorator had duty to lock house (Stansbie v Troman [1948])
- chain broken: if unforeseeable consequence of D's own negligence
- negligent driver blocked one way tunnel / foreseeable police attend but police gross negligence was not (Knightley v Johns [1982])
- negligent act of third party: more likely to break chain / but not definitely
- Stephenson LJ:
.. mistakes and mischances are to be expected...
/ (Rouse v Squires [1973]) - chain not broken: instinctive intervention / if foreseeable reaction
- lighted squib / reacting D's dangerous act (Scott v Shepherd (1773))
Claimant's own acts
- chain broken: if C acts unreasonably
- leg / steep stairs / unreasonable risk (McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts [1969])
- not broken: if C's carelessness not unreasonable / may amount to contributory negligence
- prosthesis accident / damages lowered due to contributory negligence (Spencer v Wincanton Holdings [2009] )
bits of law