Causation

Causation Test

State whether causation was or was not proved on a balance of probabilities (both a legal and a factual question) unlike breach 

"But for" test (Sunny Metals) used to establish causation in fact (Pf injury would not have been suffered but for the Df breach in duty) 
- Vice versa: If damage had occured even without the Df negligence, there is no causation (Barnett v Chelsea) (Sunny Metal) 

Used in scenarios where there is a single cause resulting in a single outcome

Barnett v Chelsea (1969) - Illustration of 'But for" test - Factual Causation 

Held: There was no factual causation 

Reasoning: Even if the Pf had received treatment he would still have died anyways, did not pass the but for test (But for test: Would the harm still have occured without the Df breach of duty? - It is an exclusionary test which can accurately exclude liability in cases involving a single known case) 

Facts: Patient went to the hospital but the doctor negligently did not examine him and told him to consult his own doctors, patient died subsequently.

Sunny Metals v Ng Khim Meng Eric

Propositions: But for test used to establish causation in fact + If the damage would have occured even without the Df negligence, there is no causation + Need to establish both factual and normative elements.

Holding: Causation not proved on a balance of probabilities as third party contractor would still have delayed construction anyways due to payment disputes between the third party contractor and the appellant, regardless of whether the Df had exercised his supervisory role. Therefore, the but for test fails.

Facts: Sunny Metal engaged third party contractor to build a factory, PME. Halfway, Sunny Metals halted the construction due to budget issues. Blamed and sued Pf for failure to obtain TOP certificates when instead it was due to the payment disputes between Sunny Metals and PME that led to the failure to obtain TOP certificates.

[Assignment of Legal Responsibility] Performance Cars v Abraham

Proposition: The second defendant caused additional damage to the injury or worsened it, they will be liable for those additional damage. If not, they would not be liable.

Held: Legal Responsibility was fully placed on the first Df.

Facts: First Df hit the Pf car and needed repainting. Second Pf hit the car before it was reprayed but no additional damage.

Baker v Willioughby

Proposition: If the Df commits a tortious action, and subsequently the second Df commits an unrelated tortious action that worsened the same injury, the first Df is liable for the initial damage + damages after the robbery for the rest of the Pf lives [Backed by policy considerations to fill the liability gap after the robbery till the end of the life]

Held: First Df (Caused the initial leg injury) liable for initial damage + Damages after robbery for the rest of the Pf life while Second Df only liable for the additional damages, the cost of amputation

Facts: First Df injured the Pf leg due to Df negligence. Second Df was a robber who shot the Pf in the leg that worsened the injury.

*Note that SG in Salcon has dismissed this position for commercial cases but left the question open as to whether Baker can be applied to personal injury cases.

Jobling [Cousin of Baker]

Held: Legal Responsibility only assigned up to the date of the supervening event.

Reasoning: Pf supervening event had occured as a “vicissitude of life”

Facts: Pf suffered an injury caused by the Df negligence, reducing his earning capacity by 50%. Pf subsequently developed an unrelated condition naturally and died.

Reconciling Baker and Jobling

• [Tortious Event v Natural Event] Distinguish based on how in Baker it was another tortious event where in Jobling it was a natural event

• [Causation Inquiry at the Time of Inquiry] in Baker, the Pf had his initially good leg damaged while in Jobling, the Pf had a latent bad back. Consistent with the purpose of tort law to put the Pf back in their initial position.

Salcon v United Cement

Holding: Applied Jobling where the Df was liable for the losses and not the Ap. Losses were due to the repair company’s negligence (2nd tortious event) and therefore Ap not liable for consequential economic loss flowing from the repairs. Repair was the cause and not the negligent construction that led to the damages.

Facts: Ap negligently constructed a silo and found out when there were cracks, contracted a repair company, the Df to fix the silo. Gave restriction not to run the silo above 70% but the Df tested it by running on 100%, collapsing the silo.

[Assignment of Legal Responsibility] - Intentional act of claimant - Test

Governing Authority - MSCT v Rott George Hugo

Test: To be wholly unreasonable

Held; That the Pf actions were not wholly unreasonable and was simply foolish and unwise - Pf held to be contributory negligent - No NAI

Rasoning: Pf actions did not amount to be ‘reckless’ or deliberate and was simply unwise anf d foolish