Causation and remoteness - Tort Law - Lecture 9 and 10

What must you complete to then start ‘causation/remoteness’ discussion?

There is a general structure which is required -

1. duty of care

2. breach of standard of care

3. causation

What two components/requirements must we complete in order to satisfy ‘causation’ in general?

1. Factual Causation (otherwise known as ‘but for’ test)

2. Legal Causation

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee on the ‘but for’ test (factual causation component), what is the context and outcome?

Context → 3 nightwatch men who drank tea, feeling ill and went to the hospital, the nurse rang the doctor who released them home and one of the men died, due to arsenic being in the tea.

Outcome → The court concluded that sending those men home were negligent, they should have stayed in hospital and been treated, but irrespective with the amount of arsenic drank, he wouldve died. The court argued taking into account this information, he would have died even if he was given the best medical care, there was no liability towards the doctor and it wasnt the doctor's negligence since the man wouldve have died even if he remained in hospital.

McWilliams v Sir William Arroll Co Ltd on the ‘but for’ test (factual causation component), what is the context and outcome?

Context → There were no equipment provided for safety at the employment, and the employee subsequently didn’t use them.

Outcome → The court found that the claimant would not have utilised the safety equipment regardless of the enployer providing it to him, no factual causation would not be considered/applied - they focused on NOT ONLY the defendant but what the claimant would have done.

What does the ‘but for’ test (component of factual causation) mean?

The courts use a hypothetical 'but for' - looking at the damage, loss and injury that came about, comparing it to a hypothetical reality as to what would have happened if the defendant was non-negligent, would the harm have occurred?

If the harm would have occurred and the defendant's actions led to the harm - but if the defendant's actions did not, then it would not fall within the but for test.

In what circumstances does the ‘but for’ test not apply? What are the 5 circumstances?

This is where there are cases where the 'but for' test could not apply easily since there are more than one defendant which you cannot ascertain who contributed to the harm, even if there were one of the defendants who could be held liable to that particular harm.

Examples of this include -

1. Indeterminate, Multiple Sufficient, and Cumulative Causes

2. Material Contribution to Injury

3. Material Contribution to Risk

4. Loss of Chance

5. Disclosure of Risk to Patient

Summers v Tice on Indeterminate, Multiple Sufficient, and Cumulative Causes (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context and outcome?

Context → There were 3 hunters, who had identical amo and equipment, one moved in front of his friends and two spotted his quail with the same place, amo and gun and importantly, it hit the friend, causing injury - there was only one bullet, but it wasnt sure which one of the friends did it, so you couldnt establish 'but for' causation even if its clear one of them did.

Outcome → The court concluded that instead of using 'but for' causation, burden of proof shifted from claimant to defendant and if the Ds show it isnt their bullet that shot them, they are absolved, but if they cannot prove it, they’ll be bound by joint civil liability for the actions - claimant can collect the full amount from one of them, defendants must figure it out amongst themselves and not up to the claimant to pursue them individually.

Cook v Lewis on Indeterminate, Multiple Sufficient, and Cumulative Causes (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The claimant (Lewis) was shot in the face while hunting by one of two hunters (Cook and Akenhead) who fired at roughly the same time. It was impossible to determine which hunter fired the specific shot that caused the injury.

Outcome → What if you had two bullets which caused two injuries, if it was possible to know which bullet hurt the defendant, we CAN to apportion ability to each defendant, but if we CAN’T split that, then the courts can hold the defendants as liable through joint and civil liability

In regards to Indeterminate, Multiple Sufficient, and Cumulative Causes (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the general principle approach?

What if you had two bullets which caused two injuries, if it was possible to know which bullet hurt the defendant, we CAN to apportion ability to each defendant.

But if we CAN’T split that, then the courts can hold the defendants as liable through joint and civil liability.

Fitzgerland v Lane on Indeterminate, Multiple Sufficient, and Cumulative Causes (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The claimant was negligently crossing the road, struck by the first defendant driving the car negligently, then the claimant was hurt by the second defendant, striking the claimant leaving him bleeding.

Outcome → On the balance of probabilities, it is impossible to say that only one was liable, burden of proof would be shifted to the defendants who had to prove that they werent liable to the injuries, which they couldnt prove and hence they were held liable under joint civil liability.

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories on Indeterminate, Multiple Sufficient, and Cumulative Causes (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context and outcome?

Californian case for context (examples to the court’s innovative approach to uncertainties and negligence when applying the ‘but for’ causation test)

Context → A pregnant mother was taking a prescription medication, different companies manufactured those pills and by taking them, her daughter developed cancer and so much time passed, it was difficult to outline which company's pill did the mother take which wasnt on the records.

Outcome → There was an issue of 'but for' causation as the companies can argue that it wasnt them or there is an absence of proof - the court decided to shift the burden of proof from the claimant to the defendant, aportion liability making it proportionate in relation to the companies' share of the industry (such as owning 60% of the industry, 30% and 10% - hence one company would have 60% liability, 30% and 10% depending on their market share of the pharmactical industry).

Baker v Willoughby on Indeterminate, Multiple Sufficient, and Cumulative Causes (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The driver was negligent, the claimant was injured and was in the process of making his claim, he was then shot another period in the SAME leg, causing his leg to be amputed.

Issue → The question arose as to what happens in the period of time, did the shooting and amputation swallow up the previous negligence, or did the defendant driver have to pay for ALL of the pain, suffering and loss of earnings from that point onwards till retirement or during the duration of the accident and amputation?

Outcome → The CA concluded that the defendant should be held liable to the full extent, not taking into account the amputation and HOL affirmed this that we cannot take into account a subsequent reason even if it swallows up the injury

Jobling v Associated Dairies on Indeterminate, Multiple Sufficient, and Cumulative Causes (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context and outcome?

Context → C was employed in D’s butcher shop. C slipped and suffered a back injury in 1973, becoming disabled. In 1976 C’s back became completely disabled when he developed myelopathy, unconnected to the back injury. C sued D for negligence, claiming for life-long disablement resulting from the back injury

Outcome → D was liable only for negligence loss of earnings in the intervening period between the back injury and C’s development myelopathy The disease was one of the vicissitudes of life such as disease that can reduce the working period or life span that has to be taken into account when considering compensation.

The judgements were critical of the decision in Baker v Willoughby but stopped short of overruling it.

Reconciling Baker v Willoughby and Jobling

• Where the supervening event is tortious, there is no reduction in damages: Baker

• But where the supervening event is non-tortious and a vicissitude of life, there is a reduction: Jobling

How do we reason both Jobling v Associated Dairies and Baker v Willoughby together when discussing Indeterminate, Multiple Sufficient, and Cumulative Causes?

Bakers case involved two torts - The driving and shooting on the SAME leg in different instances, the shooter couldnt be party to the litigation for whatever reason, WHILE in Jobling, it was regarding one tort and an illness which arose.

In Baker, the lack of finding of the shooter would give rise to injust so the burden had to be beared, UNLIKE in Jobling where there were statutory mechanisms in place to support jobling financially.

Baker case + Jobling case = These two latter cases are where the defendant has caused a negligent harm, but another harm occurred 'swallowing up the initial harm/negligence'

Reconciling Baker v Willoughby and Jobling

• Where the supervening event is tortious, there is no reduction in damages: Baker

• But where the supervening event is non-tortious and a vicissitude of life, there is a reduction: Jobling

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw on what is meant by Material Contribution to Injury (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply)?

Context → The employee works in a factory, exposed to silician dust which creates a particular type of disease and part of exposure is completing the role which makes it inescapable and unable to remove, developing the disease, but bits of the dust was also caused due to the employer's negliegnce such as cleanliness, leading to excess dust in the air so the employee also inhaled that dust too, the employee develops the disease and it is uncertain which dust created/worsened the disease.

Outcome → Applying 'but for/factual causation', it fails since you cannot tell what caused the disease and this disease gets worse which exposure, there is no understanding of what started it or made it worse, the issue of probabilities arise as to what type of dust the employee inhaled which would be impossible/difficult.

The court concluded that 'but for' will not be used, instead we should think from the 'material contribution to injury', it is NOT 'what is most probable of the dust' but the dust from both sources and whether the employer's negligence of NOT cleaning the remainder of the dust led to the disease, we DON’T need to show the negligent dust caused over 50% of the disease/injury, instead it is enough to show the dust 'materially contributed to the existence of the injury' and what is meant by 'material' is anything that isnt negligable in material (definition of 'material' is uncertain, based on ordinary logic, hence controversial - mention in PQ as a source of academic debate and ambiguity of the law)

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw on Material Contribution to Injury (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context and outcome?

Context → He contracted an illness which gets worse with every bit of exposure, the court were able to apportion liability based on diuration and extent of exposure of abestos - the employee working for varied employers for different periods of time.

Outcome → They utilised the 'material contribution to injutry' but interpretted it narrowly - the burden of proof isnt shifted, the claimants still need to show that the defendant's negligence materially contributed to the illness, the material being anything that is non-negligable.

The proportionate imposition of liability is only for the courts to do if the defence raises it (such as wanting 20% liability based on duration and amount of exposure), unless the defendants argue this, they will be held as joint civil liablility.

McGhee v National Coal Board on Material Contribution to Risk (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context, issue and outcome? And what does ‘material contribution to risk’ mean?

What ‘material contribution to risk’ means? → When the defendant is exposed to one thing that triggers the disease, but its not clear what triggers the disease. There is question as to WHAT exactly triggers it and what the negligent particual was?

Context → McGhee introduced the idea of a 'material contribution of RISK' - the case where the employee developed a risk due to brick laying dust and the employer didnt provide showers, so it stayed on the employees skin and after coming back from work, the employee was able to wash it off.

Issue → There was a question whether the dermatisis was triggered by the dust or whether it stayed on the skin for a very long time?

Outcome → The HOL stated that material contribution of risk of developing an illness like dermatisi (once you have it, further exposure doesnt make it worse), the material contribution to risk is the way to deal with such cases where there is only one issue/illness and it is difficult to assess what caused the illness,, the claimant must show thaty the defendant materially caused the risk and NOT materially contributed to the injury (illness) itself) because it is not clear which partical caused the disease, but exposure over time does give an increased RISK of the illness.

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority on Material Contribution to Risk (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context, issue and outcome? And it’s response to McGhee v NCB?

Context → A baby was born prematurely, becoming blind and it wasnt clear if this was caused due to negligent exposure to too much oxygen during the delivery process or innocent non-negliable factors.

Issue → What if you are dealing with not only one particular cause, but additional several innocent factors which could have caused the injury?

Outcome → The HOL questioned and narrowed the scope of McGhee, McGhee can only be used as a relevant test where there is a SINGULAR probable cause of injury and not risk.

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd on Material Contribution to Risk (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context, issue and outcome? It’s addresing of McGhee v NCB and Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority?

Fairchild case is the LEADING PRECEDENT addressing McGhee and Wilsher.

Context → This is a case where employees exposed to absestos over various periods of times and various employers, it wasnt scientifically known what triggered the cancer such as singular fibres or multiple, but once the disease was triggered, it doesnt worsen, you can recover and there is no known level of exposure.

Outcome - This case outlined that Material contribution to risk available when -

1. science cant establish or isnt advanced enough to establish the 'but for' test AND

2. risk arises from a single type of harm

What is the test that Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd established in relation to Material Contribution to Risk - the LEADING precedent replacing McGhee v NCB and Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority?

This case outlined that Material contribution to risk available when -

1. science cant establish or isnt advanced enough to establish the 'but for' test AND

2. risk arises from a single type of harm

Barker v Corus UK Ltd on Material Contribution to Risk (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context, issue and outcome?

Context → The case involves the claimant’s husbands contracted an illness due to absestos dust over the years, employed by the defendants. Part of the periods they were self-employed, exposing themselves to absestos.

Outcome → The court ruled that the period of self-employment DIDN’T eliminate it, but REDUCED the scope of damages they could receive.

BUT the majority in HOL held that material contribution of risk and injuries are NOT the same test, operating in different circumstances.

The proportion of damages was revised to the different defendants based on their contribution to the INCREASED risk of developing the illness based on the amount of time they were exposed to absestos by each employment

What does Section 3 of Compensation Act 2006 outline in relation to Material Contribution of Risk (specifically for cases where claimants experience Mesothelioma - form of cancer)?

Compensation Act 2006 allows specifically for mestopmia cancer case, it will amount to joint civil laibility.

Whilst usual cases falling under Barker and Fairchild developing cancer which isn’t Mesothelioma, it is proportionate / apportioned accordingly amongst the defendants proportionality (such as with time spent working there and etc for each defendant).

Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd on Material Contribution to Risk (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context, issue and outcome? It’s addresing of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd?

Context → The case is a office worker in a defendant's factory, walking across the different facilities, during bits of her job, she was exposed to absestos dust and exposed to low levels of absestos in the general atmostphere from no fault of her employer.

Issue → Whether Fairchild applies only in one tortous action or where there is one tortous action and one that isnt? Whether we can admit statistical evidence to establish whether the negligent exposure did or did not cause the injury? -

Outcome → The supreme court concluded that Fairchild applies to cases where there is ONLY ONE cause of exposure is tortous even if you have OTHER factors that contribute to the illness at relatively LOW level (such as a employer, then one type of fibres being negligent and not, but the court rejected the meaning of statistical evidence to establish/defend a claim, but not when claiming damages. You must still SHOW material contribution of risk in these circumstances, you cannot utilise statistical evidence)

What is known as ‘loss of chance’ (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply)?

Loss of chance in medical negligence, such as someone going to their GP and instead they have a cancer, but the GP sent them away and if the GP sent them, they would have been treated and the skin cancer has been discovered late, the chances of survival reduced.

The question is whether this person should be able to recover for that claim, not gaining cancer, but losing a certain percentage of recovery having not discovered it earlier?

When courts allow a claim for loss of chance, liability is proportionate which is JUST the bit you lost (if your negligence caused 59% chances of keeping your leg, the defendant will only pay you 59% of the leg lost and not the entirety)

Hotson v East Berks AHA on Loss of Chance (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context, issue and outcome?

Context → 13 year old boy climbed up a tree and fell, he was misdiagnosed by the doctors, developing necrosis of the hip joint and the judge said he had 25% chance of making full reocvery if the illness had been spotted quickly, hence he was compensated for the 25%.

Outcome → The HOL disgareed, argued that causation hasnt been proved by balance of probabilities, the conlsuoon was that it was impssible to bring a claim of loss of chance and it had to be on the balance of probabilities.

Gregg v Scott on Loss of Chance (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context/first instance judgement and outcome? And what rule did Gregg v Scott establish in regards to loss of chance?

Context and first instance judgment → It was a similar result and conclusion as Hotson v East Berks AHA, but there is development in the law - negligent treatment of lead whch led to a negligent treatment of cancer and first instance judge found that it reduced the chances of the claimant from 42% to 25%.

Outcome →

The HOL stated that when dealing with loss of chance, two element must be established -

1. what are the chances of loss? (it has to be over 50%- under 50% means not establishing but for causation - if the inital chances were over 50% and drops below 50% and loss is materlaised, you can successfully claim for that bit)

2. whether the loss of chances has already materalised?

Chester v Ajshar on Disclosure of Risk to Patient (circumstances where the ‘but for’ test does not apply), what is the context, issue and outcome? (Chester v Ajshar as authority for disclosure of risk to patient)

Context → There was 1-2% chance of a disability arising from a surgery, but if she was informed, there would be a delay due to seeking a second opinion and she would have agreed.

Outcome → The court said that it was the failure to provide proper medical information prior to the surgery, only applying to a narrow sets of circumstances, not based on negligent proceedures OR instances whrre the claimant would go ahead with the procedure even if they had proper information in front of them.

Which cases do you need for the following instances - (1) if the illness gets worse with every exposure, (2) if your disease/injury is not progressive or not mesothelioma cancer case, (3) if it is a mesothelioma cancer case, (4) if there are several multiple factors of negligence and non-negligence, (5) cases regarding material contribution of injury?

1. If the illness gets worse with every exposure, utilise Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw and Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) Ltd

2. If you have a disease or injury that is not progressive or not an mesothelioma cancer cases, we need to establish Barker v Corus UK Ltd

3. If it is a mesothelioma cancer case, then you utilise Fairchild and Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd, then follow through joint civil liability

4. If you have a scenario of multiple factors of negligence and non-negligence, then you follow Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

5. If you deal with cases like Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) Ltd in regards to material contribution of injury, the court will consider that as part of the portion if the defendants argue the contribution of their negligence and the court enforce this (such as the employer employing the claimant for 60% of the time whilst another does for 40% - hence the negligence is split according to the defendants as per 60% and 40%)

What are the 3 components of legal causation?

1. Remoteness

2. Scope of duty

3. Intervening Acts (Novus Actus Interveniens)

The Wagon Mound on Remoteness (component of legal causation), what is the context and outcome?

Context → There was a question about whether defendants should be liable for things that science said was impossible for a long time, such as oil triggering a fire on water, causing damage to the dock and ships docking there.

Outcome → The court held that overseas tank ships were liable for all the damages caused by the fire, though it was appealed within the privy council, adopting a NEW test of reasonable foresight of the type of damage - we will assess the reasonable foresight in regards to the reasonable person test at the time of breach. We cannot hold defendants on things for all the consequneces, the damage of the oil igniting was NOT foreseeable when at science argued that oil cannot catch fire in water at the time which was incorrect in hindsight.

Smith v Leech Brain & Co on Remoteness (component of legal causation), what is the context, importance and outcome?

Context → The claimant was employed, defendant didnt provide safety equipment, claimant is hit by embolten hot burn on his lip, the burn on the lower lip triggered cancer which the claimant had a disposition to naturally.

Outcome → We could foresee a burn, but not a cancer developing from a burn, but this argument was REJECTED in the courts, arguing we must idenitfy the TYPE of damage, and not the PARTICULAR damage caused. We take our claimants as we find them, so the thin skull rule applies even if it had a particular different expression, you are held liable since it would be expected that it was bodily harm, but if we couldnt foresee it and the claimants vulnerability made them vulnerable, then it is too remote - no need to focus on the specifics of the type of damage foreseen

Importance → What happens if the claimant has a particular vulnerability, surely we can foresee a particular type of damage - the claimant had a vulnerability, making it possible to cause damage that would be foreseeable necessarily

Lagden v O’Connor on Remoteness (component of legal causation), what is the context, importance and outcome?

Context → The claimant was in a car accident and it was the defendants fault, the claimant couldnt afford the car, hence entering into a credit scheme, charging a higher daily rate.

Outcome → HOL outlined that wrongdoers have to bear such consequences as they're reasonably foreseeable damages - a car accident and due to this, they might have to borrow money to find a replacement car or till they have a new one, the fact the claimant is more financially vulnerable than others having greater expenditure is TOO remote and the defendant must compensate for those types of losses as well

Hughes v Lord Advocate on Remoteness (component of legal causation), what is the context, importance and outcome?

Context → There were two boys who used the post office building, there was a hole open too, and parafin lamp which was left behind by staff unsupervised, though the staff weren't present and the boys had simply entered the building, the young boy tripped over the lamp, causing it to explode and through that explosion, it led to the boy suffering severe burns.

Outcome → HOL accepted the appeal, arguing that the post officer workmen breached their duty owed to the boys, it was reasonably foreseeable, where a 'known source of damage' which could have been foreseen as long as it is the TYPE of damages, we expect bodily harm and it doesnt matter how severe it was, it was a bodily harm which was foreseeable

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council on Remoteness (component of legal causation), what is the context, importance and outcome? And what is says in regards Hughes v Lord Advocates, and The Wagon Mound case?

Context → This case clarified the Hughes and Wagonmound compatability case - The case included two boys finding an abandoned boat on the council premises, deciding to fix it up and the car jack collapsed, causing the boat to collapse and the boy was injured.

Outcome → The HOL adopted an approach of -

1. Jolley tells us that the Wagon Mound case and Hughes v Lord Advocate cases AREN’T contradictory, remoteness DOESN’T require the defendant to see the precise amount or exact extent of damage, JUST the amount

2. When we discuss remoteness in the Wagon Mound case, we talk about reasonable foreseaability of the type of DAMAGE such as psychiatric injury and physical harm - WHEN we talk about foreseeability in DUTY OF CARE, we talk about the chance of damage materialising, this is an important clarification

Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance on Remoteness (component of legal causation), what is the context, importance and outcome?

Context → Claimant was in two car accidents which werent her default, in the second accident, she hired the car through the insurance and the rental agreement included that any damage occurred during the rental, she will be liable for daily rental rate up until 30 days in the garage being repaired and not being used by others and damage paid for too, the daily rate charge which was in dispute.

Outcome → The court concluded that it was £1560 which is 50 per day, the court decided whether we were dealing with pure economic loss, we are not, we are dealing with consequential damage andf should be treated as if she was the owner and she wasnt a third party, it wasnt pure economic loss and instead are these daily charges too remote to recover which is reaonably foreseeable by claimants in a car accident?

The Supreme Court concluded that we need to account for the kind of vulnerability the claimants might have on the facts, the financial loss was not too remote to be unforeseeable, but if the daily rate was way above market charges or there was punitive cost, then those would not be reasonably foreseeable or recoverable, the charging rates were in line wirth market rate hence reasonable.

Another scope addressed is whether the claimant has to show their claim doesnt fall within the scope of duty or the defendant who has to say the opposite - where does the burden of proof fall onto? What must be established to recover your losses which is duty of care, damage if there is a breach, but the court argued in regards to legal causation to establish falls on the defendant, NOT the claimant, the claimant doesnt have to anticipate or rule out issues on remoteness/scope of duty/intervening acts. The claimant must show they fulfill the criteria, the defendant has the burden of proof to disprove the following claim

South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd on Scope of Duty (component of legal causation), what is the context, importance and outcome?

Context → It was found that the defendants negligently overvalued properties, with the actual value at the time, the money which was advanced due to the false valuation and the sale price leading to collpase in the market and the value of the buildings, leading to them being worth less than the valuation - you gave more money to home buyers to mortgage on property but the property has been overvalued, than what was worth to compensate for the mortgagees defaulting,

Issue → (Issue 1 - There is a question whether the money lost was recoverable or not?) + (Issue 2 - unlike the but for test, Hoffman argued if we imagined the valuation was correct, would it fall under the type of losses?)

Outcome → (Answer to issue 1 - HOL stated the money wasnt recoverable, he argued what would be the case if the valuation was correct at the start and not overvalued) + (Answer to issue 2 - The HOL clarified that the causation should be the overvalued valuation between the actual value for damages reclaimed)

Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP on Scope of Duty (component of legal causation), what is the context, importance and outcome? What CLARIFICATIONS did Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK Ltd make to South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd?

Important → Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP clarified the South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd.

Context → This was a case of risk swap agreement, thee risks were incorrect and articulated incorrectly, the claimants suffered losses on interest rates.

Outcome → HOL made clarifications to South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd

1. how do we determine the scope of duty of care? - we will establish the scope of duty of care objectively, given the relationship between the parties (such as the professional and person seeking advice, giving you incorrect information and develop something related to it, it falls within the scope but if you dveelip a damage not foreseen, then it falls outside the scope)

2. if we assume the advice was correct, how does this play? - this will not be a determining factor in the scope of duty of care.

3. advice and provision of information - advice is about providing ALL relevant information for a decision, BUT provision of information is SOME of the information necessary to make an informed decision

Khan v Meadows on Scope of Duty (component of legal causation), what is the context, issue and outcome + importance?

Context → The case was regaridng a pregnant mother regarding whether she was carrying a Hemophilia gene, they tested her negligently and didnt notify her that she was carrier, the child had Hemophilia and Autism, the condition of Hemophilia were worsened by Autism.

Issue → Whether the negligence on misdiagnosis could be claimed by the claimant? And whether South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd and Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP scope of duty of care cases are limited to solely economic loss issues or other cases?

Outcome → The Court of appeal reduced the damages money to only include hemophilia and not autism influencing it, and suoreme court affirmed this. The scope of the duty is dependent on the type of service the defendant had undertaken and supposed to address, in this case it was providing information on hemophilia and not all risks related to the pregnancy.

Importance → We think about a standard of care and breach of damage, but we must think about legal and factual causation, intervening acts as per Lord Burrow's opinion and burden of proof to show something is remote is on the defendant and not the claimant as per case law.

What are the 3 following actions that can constitute a Intervening Acts (Novus Actus Interveniens) - legal causation component?

1. unnatural phenomon

2. third party intervention

3. claimants actions might break chain of causation

Carslogie Steamship Co. v Royal Norweigan Government on Intervening Acts - Novus Actus Interveniens (component of legal causation), what is the context, issue and outcome?

Context → The appealant's steamship negligently collided with the respondant's steamship hinguard, but it required temporary repairs and on its way to new york, severe weather was encountered making the steamship unseaworthy, staying in the docks for 50 days, but when it was still seaworthy and no severe weather, it would have stayed in the docks for 10 days.

Issue → Was there a claim for the 10 days or 50 days staying in the docks?

Outcome → The parties recognised the hinguard would’ve been unseaworthy irrespective of weather, HOL concluded it wasnt the collision leading to the loss of the charter, but bad weather did and would have caused the steamship of being unseaworthy irrespective of the collision. The fact that the parties agreed it was a bad storm and would’ve happened irrespective of the collision, there was an intervening act as an unnatural pheonoamon/force of nature as an intervening act

Stansbie v Troman on Intervening Acts - Novus Actus Interveniens (component of legal causation), what is the context, issue and outcome?

Context → The appeallant was a decorator who worked for the defendant for a month, asked not to leave the house unlocked and he went on a break, leaving it unlocked and during this time, a third unknown party broke in stealing valuable goods.

Issue → The question was whether they could recover the loss of property from the appeallant who left the door open irrespective of the third parties' criminal act, should there be a break in the chain of causation?

Outcome → The Court of Appeal argued that there is no obligation by a party to protect another party from risks, or where the defendant has an obligation to prevent such injuries, the appeal should be dismissed as the appeallant has assumed such an obligation and duty of care towards the owner not to leave the house in a state that isnt reasonably secure and there was a particular request made, which was an obligation accepted voluntarily by the appeallant.

Dorset Yacht v Home Office on Intervening Acts - Novus Actus Interveniens (component of legal causation), what is the context and outcome?

Context → This is a case where the defendant didnt assume a responsibility voluntarily, there was a special relationship between the defendant and the party, which means there is no break of chain of causation - the boys were under the custody of the officers on the island, the boys attempted to escape the island and damaged the claimants yacht.

Outcome → This case was ruled against the home office, hence the duty of care was breached and Lord Reed argued huamn intervening acts, actions must be very likely to happen for it to not break the chain of causation, something being forseeable but not likely to happen would break the chain of causation, once it is vert likely to happen, it doesnt matter if its criminal or tortious, it wont break the chain of causation - it was very likely that the boys would escape and that damage would occur, so there was no break in the chain of causation

Perl (Exporters) Ltd v Camden LBC on Intervening Acts - Novus Actus Interveniens (component of legal causation), what is the context and outcome? In what 5 grounds does the actions of third parties not break chain of causation as per Perl (Exporters) Ltd v Camden LBC?

Context → The claimants were retailors, defendantts were property owners nextdoor and the claimants property which C is renting, the property had a broken lock and knocking through the basement wall entering the claimants wall, stealing their merchandise.

Outcome → The court concluded that it didnt fit any of the options outlined, so special relationship nor assumption of responsibility and etc materalised. The court argued the criminal act of the third party broke the chain of causation, so there is no liability.

The court concluded that there are several grounds where despite the actions of the third party, there is no break of chain of causation -

1. special relationship - Dorset Yacht v Home Office

2. assuming a duty of care - Stansbie v Troman

3. occupiers liability act - not in the module

4. defendant might have contributed the creation of nusiance, by allowing them onto their property

4. vicarious liability

5. defendant presents the means to the 3rd party to commit the act, especially if its likely they will do that - such as giving a drunk person keys to a car

Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co Ltd on Intervening Acts - Novus Actus Interveniens (component of legal causation), what is the context and outcome?

Context → Seller gave the young boy the gasoline, which triggered a fire and causing the young boy to burn himself

Outcome → The Privy Council, in allowing the appeal, held that the injuries suffered by the claimant should be attributed solely to the negligence of the respondent's employee.

Knightley v Jones on Intervening Acts - Novus Actus Interveniens (component of legal causation), what is the context, outcome and importance?

Context → D1 drove negligently into the tunnel and his car was turned over, D4 was a police inspector at the scene and forgot to close the tunnel which is required as per police order and D4 ordered C to drive a motorcycle agains traffic to block the tunnel entrance and in doing so, C was struck by D2 who was driving the car negligently. D3 was the chief constable.

Issue → There was a question as to who should be liable of these things? What if the acts of the third party arent criminal or intentional, but negligent, would it break the chain of causation?

Outcome → Court of appeal concluded that D3 and D4 were liable and actions of the police officers, failure to block the tunnel upon arrival broke the chain of causation between D1.

The case is important, because -

1) in regards to rescuers, there is a general rule that their negligence is not an intervening act that breaks chain of causation as the porcess of rescue, risk is expected as rescuers act in the moment might be somewhat negligent. BUT IF they are negligent but reckless to a HIGHER STANDARD, not just lapse of judgement at a moment but acting without due care in a considerable way, if a rescuer acts recklessly in relation to their own safety or others, a break in the chain of causation can be established

2) general point is that if the sequence of events isnt natural or probable following from D1's negligence, it is not reasonably foreseeable and can lead to the break in the chain of causation - things that dont naturally follow from D1s negligence - if you have omissions that are less serious, they are unlikely to break chain of causation, but a reckless act is likely to be considered an intervening act

McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts on Intervening Acts - Novus Actus Interveniens (component of legal causation), what is the context, outcome and importance?

Context → The claimant sustained an injury to employer negligence, impacting his leg and the leg would be numb, losing control of his leg and 3 weeks after the accident, he was inspecting a home for tenancy accompanied by relatives and ten steps there was no handrail and his leg went numb, fearing he would fall and decided to jump from the bottom of the staircase, facing additional injury.

Outcome → HOL dismissed the appeal, arguing the cclaimants conduct was unreasonable to jump and this unreasonable decision should be treated as an intervening act to break the chain of causation. In this case, they werent focusing on foreseeability since the defendant mustn’t pay damages for the claimant's decision.

Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd on Intervening Acts - Novus Actus Interveniens (component of legal causation), what is the context, outcome and importance?

Context → A case based on a work accident of the employer being negligent causing severe injuries to the claimant causing clinical depression and the depression caused the employee to jump from his death from a multistory carpark.

Issue → It was clear that the employers didnt owe duty to prevent the suicide, but whether the original breach of duty of the employees safety being priortised came first, or whether the decision of the claimant to take his own life broke the chain of causation? How do we deal with the acts of the claimant being considered an intervening act, breaking the chain of causation?

Outcome → The HOL found that the claimants decision and actions werent an intevring act, the rationale of interventing act is that of fairness, it is not possible to say that the deceased made a voluntary choice to leap and it was impacted by his depression, triggered by the negligent accident by the employer.

Gray v Thomas Trains Ltd on Intervening Acts - Novus Actus Interveniens (component of legal causation), what is the context, outcome and importance? And Gray v Thomas Trains Ltd contrast in it’s ruling than McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts - how do we reason BOTH cases differently?

Importance → This case wasnt based on fairness, but legal coherence across different bodies of law in which the claimants own actions should be an intervening act.

Context → C was a passenger on a train which was in a railroad accident, suffering PTSD during this accident and killed someone. He brought a claim against the railway operator for causing his psychological injuries and his loss of money for the period of being held in custody, the court accepted the injuries, but not the loss of earning initially.

Outcome → HOL said that the claimants actions constitute an intervening act, this appears in conflict with Corr case, and it should have succeeded, but unlike Corr, there was a third party who sustained injury by the claimant and as a matter of policy, we cannot allow C to exonerate him from killing the victim when criminal law would hold C responsible. Even if the causal chain was not broken and the chain of causation remained, it would not be allowed on policy reasons.