causation cases

march v stramare facts

• defendants parked a truck in the middle of a road in the early hours of the morning, street was well lit and hazard lights were on

• plaintiff was speeding and affected by alcohol, was injured when his car collided with the truck

• held the defendants liable on the basis that the plaintiffs injury was within the scope of the risk created

march v stramare relevance

• principle when there are two causes of injury and an intervening act of the plaintiff, if injury was foreseeable liability will arise

• insufficiencies of the but for test

amaca v ellis facts

• plaintiff died of lung cancer, during his work life had been exposed to asbestos fibres with two seperate employers

• also smoked heavily before being diagnosed with lung cancer

• issue was whether the plaintiff had established that it was more probable than not that the negligence caused the cancer

• held that it was not proved the employers were liable

amaca v ellis relevance

• multiple successive causes - choose one to prove that caused the injury

• insufficient causal link

amaca v booth facts

• plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma and his main exposure to asbestos occurred during his work as a motor mechanic

• worked with a number of different asbestos manufacturers during his life

• central question was whether it was more probable than not that each manufacturers negligence was the cause of the mesothelioma

• held that the contribution was apparent

amaca v booth relevance

• statistical correlation between the asbestos exposure and the mesothelioma appeases factual causation

adeels palace v moubarak facts

• adeels had a reception and restaurant business which hosted an event on New Years Eve

• was a dispute on the dance floor which broke out into a fight with one man hit in the face, drawing blood

• he left the restaurant and returned with a gun and shot a man in his path as well as the man who had hit him

• two men who were shot brought proceedings and alleged they had suffered injury as a result of Adeels failure to provide adequate security

• held that the security guards would not have stopped the shooter as he was angry and seeking revenge

adeels palace v moubarak relevance

• use of a counterfactual in the necessary condition test, importance of probability

strong v woolworths facts

• plaintiff suffered serious spinal injury when she slipped and fell on a chip and her crutch slipped out from under her

• at the time was in the sidewalk sales area which was under the care and control of woolworths ltd

• question was whether the plaintiff proved that woolworths negligence was the cause of her injury

• found that a reasonable cleaning service was more likely than not to have been able to clean up the chip

strong v woolworths relevance

• statistical probability as a way to prove causation

• requirement of the breach being more probable than not to have caused the harm

chapman v hearse facts

• question of whether Chapman’s negligence had a causal link to Dr Cherry’s death

• found that there was a link

chapman v hearse relevance

original negligence liable for the injury as it was foreseeable given the circumstances (on a road)

haber v walker facts

• plaintiffs husband was injured in a motor vehicle accident and he suffered severe brain damage, eventually committing suicide

• wife sued the negligent driver

• question of whether the suicide was voluntary and new intervening act

• held that there was no intervening act as the suicide was not voluntary and due to the negligence

haber v walker relevance

• involuntary acts can not be intervening and break the chain of causation

• suicide was being shaped by the original negligence

mahoney v kruschich demolitions facts

• plaintiff alleged that injuries sustained during his employment required significant medical treatment

• made a claim against his employer as well as one of his doctors arguing they both contributed to the continuing injury

• held that the increasing of the plaintiffs condition did not make the employer liable

mahoney v kruschich demolitions relevance

• liability for multiple successive causes - each defendant held liable for their share of the negligence unless they can prove they did not cause the injury

baker v willoughby facts

• plaintiff was injured in a car accident caused by the defendants negligence, causing the plaintiff serious injury to his leg and ankle

• three years later he was shot in the leg and it had to be amputated

• question of whether the loss suffered from the car accident was diminished by the second injury

• held that the plaintiffs amputation did not mean he would never suffer again

baker v willoughby relevance

• supervening events, original tortfeasor still liable even though the second tort changed the injury

jobling v associated dairies facts

• during the plaintiffs employment suffered an injury to his back, had the effect of incapacitating him for anything but light work

• plaintiff was later found to be suffering a condition unrelated to the accident

• question of supervening illnesses unrelated to the initial injury and if they can limit damages awarded to a plaintiff

• held that the employer would only be liable for damages for the years the plaintiff was employed

jobling v associated dairies relevance

• reinforced the principle that damages should be awarded based on the actual loss caused by the defendants actions

• eggshell skull rule

williams v the bermuda hospitals board facts

• plaintiff was sent to hospital with abdominal pain, surgery for appendicitis was recommended but there were delays

• plaintiff suffered injury to his heart and lungs as a result

• defendant held liable due to a material contribution to the harm

williams v the bermuda hospitals board relevance

• affirmed that a defendant can be held liable if their negligence materially contributed to the harm, even if they were not the sole cause

wallace v kam facts

• plaintiff was not warned of two risks in proposed medical treatment for a condition of his lumbar spine

• surgical procedure was unsuccessful and the spinal condition did not improve, sustained neuropaxia

• second risk did not eventuate

• plaintiff argued that liability could prevail for the failure to warn of all risks

• held that the defendant was not liable for the risk that did not occur

wallace v kam relevance

• no liability for failing to warn of a risk that did not materialise

wagon mound no. 1 facts

• ship employees allowed a large amount of oil to spill into Sydney Harbour which spread over much of the bay and under the plaintiffs wharf

• plaintiff was given orders to resume welding at their wharf and the oil ended up catching fire on a body of water

• found that it was not reasonably foreseeable to have known the oil was capable of being set afire

wagon mound no. 1 relevance

• test of remoteness - was reasonably foreseeable

wagon mound no. 2 facts

• plaintiffs were the owners of the ships moored at the wharf when the fire broke out

• question of whether the harm was too remote was answered differently as the plaintiff was not part of the conservation

wagon mound no. 2 relevance

• test of remoteness - not reasonably foreseeable

hughes v lord advocate facts

• 8 year old boy was severely burnt after a paraffin lamp exploded on him

• lamp was one of several left at night surrounding an unguarded open manhole in the street used for workmen

• held that a child being burnt by the lamps was foreseeable

hughes v lord advocate relevance

• consolidated that the precise way the harm occurred does not need to be foreseeable, but rather the harm in the general circumstances

jolley v sutton LBC facts

• in the grounds of a block of council flats owned by the defendant, the plaintiff was a 14 year old who sustained serious injury after laying underneath an abandoned cabin cruiser

• it fell on him when attempting to repair it and became a quadriplegic

• held that children are unpredictable and the risk of harm in this circumstance was apparent

jolley v sutton lbc relevance

• foreseeability of the actions of children, inherently unpredictable but where harm is foreseeable in the general circumstances, liability will arise

stephenson v waite tileman facts

• during the plaintiffs employment he was engaged in resetting the wire rope system of a crane

• evidence showed that the wire rope was rusty and ended up wounding him and developed debilitating symptoms due to the cut

• found that the injury was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant

stephenson v waite tileman relevance

• eggshell skull rule applies

• liability will arise for all subsequent injuries that develop as a result of the original foreseeable injury