Tort 3: Causation

Negligence sequence

Loss, Duty, Breach, Causation, Remoteness, Defences

"But for" Test

But for the defendant's breach, would the claimant have suffered losses?

Factual causation

If it was not for the defendant's actions, the claimant would not have suffered losses

Material Contribution Test

Used where there are two or mote causes operating together to cause the claimant's loss

Performance Cars v Abraham

Second defendant not liable if they have not caused additional damages

Baker v Willoughby

First defendant is liable for initial injuries, second defendant is liable for additional losses

Jobling v Associated Diaries

Defendant liable for damage up to the natural events

Legal Causation

Court must consider whether there are any grounds upon which the links should be regarded as having been broken

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

Doctor is not liable for the patient's death is there is very little or no chance that proper examination would have saved the patient

Wilsher v Essex AHA

Defendant not liable where there are multiple causes and it cannot be proved that they the defendant's breach was the main cause

Chester v Afshar

Doctors failure to advise patient of risk amounts to causation

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw

Even if the but for test fails, the defendant's breach can still amount to causation as a contributing factor

Bailey v Ministry of Defence

Negligent care did not cause the death of the patient but did make a material contribution to her losses

McGhee v National Coal Board

Defendant's breach did not cause claimant's dermatitis but did materially contribute

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd

Material increase in risk test made the defendant liable for the claimant's asbestosis

Hotson v East Berkshire

The defendant was not liable as there was a 75% chance that the loss would have occurred anyway but the defendant cannot claim damages for the remaining 25% chance

Apportionment

Sharing liability between defendant to produce a practical result providing compensation to the claimant

Fitzgerald v Lane & Patel

Claimant was responsible for 50% of their own losses but two defendants were liable for the remaining 25% each

Section 3 Compensation Act 2006

Asbestosis cases hold all negligent employers liable to the claimant

Novus actus interveniens

A new intervening act

Types of novus actus interveniens

Acts of God, Acts of third parties, Acts of the claimant

Carslogie v Norweigan Government

Defendant is liable for the first set of damage and not the act of god that came afterwards

Knightley v Johns

Acts of a third party break the chain of causation if they were highly unforeseeable (not applicable to medical treatment)

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group

Medical professional liable for future negligent treatment if it was foreseeable

McKew v Hollan & Hanmen & Cubitts

Claimant acted unreasonably and broke the chain of causation between him and the defendants

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets

Defendant acted very carefully and her actions did not break the chain of causation