Negligence: Causation Practice Flashcards

These vocabulary flashcards cover the core principles of causation in negligence for the SQE1 syllabus, including factual causation tests, legal causation, intervening acts, and the rules governing remoteness of damage.

Causation of damage

The requirement in the core principles of tort that there must be a causal link between the defendant’s breach of duty and the claimant’s damage.

Causation in fact

The first issue of causation asking whether, as a matter of fact, the defendant's negligence was a cause of the claimant's harm.

'But for' test

The test applied to determine factual causation by asking: 'But for the defendant's breach of duty, would the harm to the claimant have occurred?'

Chain of causation

The requirement that the act or omission of the defendant should be linked to the loss or damage suffered by the claimant.

Balance of probabilities

The standard of proof in a civil case, meaning it is 'more likely than not' (more than $50\% \text{ probability}$) that the harm was caused by the defendant.

Material contribution approach

An approach applied when multiple causes contribute to an injury, where the claimant succeeds if they show a defendant's breach materially contributed to the damage, as seen in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956].

Material increase in risk

An exception to the 'but for' test used in cases of scientific uncertainty (such as mesothelioma), where a defendant is liable if their breach materially increased the risk of injury, rather than necessarily contributing to the injury itself.

Divisible injury

An injury, such as a progressive disease, where the court can divide the harm and apportion damages according to each defendant's contribution (e.g., length of employment exposure).

Indivisible injury

A single injury that cannot be divided between potential defendants (e.g., a broken leg), allowing the claimant to recover full damages from any single defendant responsible.

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Statute giving the court power to apportion damage between multiple responsible defendants according to their share of responsibility, without affecting the claimant's right to recover full damages from any one of them.

Novus actus interveniens

The Latin name for a 'new intervening act' that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's negligence and the claimant's damage.

Remoteness of damage

A limitation on recoverable damage determined by whether the damage was of such a kind that a reasonable person would have foreseen it.

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961]

The case establishing that the test for remoteness of damage is one of reasonable foreseeability.

'Similar in type' rule

A proviso to the remoteness rule stating that if a type of injury was foreseeable, the defendant is liable even if the precise way in which the injury occurred was not foreseeable.

'Egg-shell skull' rule

A proviso to the remoteness rule, also known as 'you take your victim as you find him,' stating that a defendant is liable for the full extent of harm even if a pre-existing condition makes the damage worse than foreseen.

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]

A case where a doctor's breach did not cause a patient's death because the 'but for' test failed; the patient would have died from arsenic poisoning even if examined.

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988]

A case where factual causation failed because there were five possible causes of blindness and the claimant could not prove the defendant's breach was the one that caused the harm on the balance of probabilities.

Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987]

A case where a claim failed because there was only a $25\%$ chance the defendant's breach caused the disability, which did not satisfy the balance of probabilities.

Performance Cars v Abraham [1962]

A case establishing that a defendant who causes a subsequent injury is only liable to the extent that they make previous existing damage worse.

McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969]

A case where the claimant's own unreasonable act (descending a steep staircase without a handrail with a weak leg) broke the chain of causation.