Tort Law: Negligence, Causation, and Remoteness

Flashcards covering Tort Law principles on the standard of care for third-party actions, causation, multiple sufficient causes, concurrent wrongdoers, novus actus interveniens, remoteness, and the egg-shell skull rule based on Dr. Sarah Fulham-McQuillan's lectures.

Smith v Littlewoods [1987] AC 241

A case where vandals broke into a disused cinema bought for supermarket conversion and started a fire that damaged adjacent property; the House of Lords held the defendants owed a duty of care but did not breach it because the third parties' deliberate conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.

"Extremely Probable" Standard (Lord Mackay)

The high threshold articulated in Smith v Littlewoods stating that unless the deliberate conduct of a third party was extremely probable, as opposed to merely possible, it is difficult to show the defendant should have reasonably foreseen and guarded against it.

Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11

A case where a tenant was violently killed by a neighbour who had been threatened with eviction at a meeting earlier that day; the House of Lords held the council was not liable for failing to warn or prevent harm caused by the criminal act of a third party that it did not create and had not undertaken to avert.

Ennis v The Child and Family Agency [2015] IECA 105 (High Court)

The first-instance decision by Hogan J finding the Agency liable and awarding €75,000 to a neighbour whose house burned down after a former care recipient and two young men broke in and started a fire, reasoning by analogy to the State's duty to supervise prisoners.

Ennis v The Child and Family Agency [2015] IECA 105 (Court of Appeal)

The appellate judgment by Kelly J overturning the High Court, holding it would be neither fair, just, nor reasonable to impose liability on the Agency for criminal wrongdoing by persons over whom it had no control, as it would cause a stultifying effect on discharging its statutory functions.

Doody v Clarke [2013] IEHC 505

A case where a 46-year-old nurse was blinded in one eye by an egg thrown from a car by a teenager; the High Court held the 17-year-old car driver was not liable in negligence for the sudden, deliberate criminal action of his passenger.

Cross J's Ruling on Passenger Control (Doody v Clarke)

The judicial finding that while a driver owes a duty of care to fellow road users, expecting him to anticipate and prevent a passenger from throwing an egg without prior discussion would impose an unreasonable, excessively high, and onerous standard of care.

Elements of the Tort of Negligence

The four required legal components: (1) Duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) Breach of that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of behaviour, (3) Loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff, and (4) Causation linking the breach to the damage.

Two-Step Enquiry in Causation

The legal framework dividing causation analysis into two consecutive stages: (1) Factual cause (establishing physical causal connection) and (2) Legal cause (determining scope of liability and remoteness).

"But For" Test

The negative test for factual causation in tort law, stating that an act is the cause of an event if the event would not have occurred without ("but for") the act in question.

Kenny v O’Rourke [1972] IR 339

An Irish Supreme Court case where a painter fell from a defective ladder provided by general contractors; the contractors were not liable under the "but for" test because the plaintiff testified that he fell because he leant over too far.

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428

A case where a hospital negligently sent away nightwatchmen complaining of vomiting without examination; the hospital was not liable for the patient's death because he died of arsenic poisoning and would have died even if properly examined.

Duffy v Rooney and Dunnes Stores [1997] IEHC 102

A case where an infant's coat caught fire from an unguarded sitting room fire; the grandfather was liable as occupier and custodian, but Dunnes Stores was not liable despite failing to affix a flammability warning label.

Legal Cause (Duffy v Rooney)

The causation principle establishing that a failure to affix a warning label was not the legal cause of injury because the grandmother would have bought the coat anyway and the child's other labelled garments did not alter the guardians' conduct.

Multiple Sufficient Causes

Scenarios where more than one independent event or wrongdoer is sufficient to cause or worsen the plaintiff's loss, making the traditional application of the "but for" test problematic.

Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467

A case where a claimant's leg was injured in a car crash and subsequently shot during an armed robbery requiring amputation; the House of Lords held the original negligent driver's liability continued after the shooting so the plaintiff was not left uncompensated.

Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794

A case where an employee suffered a work-related back injury and later developed an unrelated, disabling back disease before trial; the House of Lords held the employer was not liable for any losses occurring after the onset of the natural disease.

Vicissitudes of Life

Normal, non-tortious misfortunes, natural illnesses, and changes of circumstances in life for which courts do not award damages and which a plaintiff must endure without compensation.

R(L) v Minister for Health and Children [2001] 1 IR 744

An Irish case involving a haemophiliac infected with Hepatitis C who subsequently had a leg amputated following a road accident in 1977, illustrating how supervening events are assessed relative to loss of earnings.

Supervening Tortious Act Principle (O'Neill J)

The rule from R(L) stating that while a supervening non-tortious event is a vicissitude of life that cuts off damages, a supervening tortious act does not reduce the liability of the first wrongdoer, making both tortfeasors liable for what they caused.

Concurrent Wrongdoers

Two or more persons who are at fault and responsible in law for the same damage to a plaintiff under Section 11 of the Civil Liability Act 1961.

Section 11(3) of the Civil Liability Act 1961

Statutory rule establishing that where two or more persons are at fault and it cannot be established which one actually caused the damage while the other is free from responsibility, all are deemed concurrent wrongdoers.

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 61

A House of Lords case where a worker contracted pneumoconiosis from inhaling both innocent and negligent sources of silica dust; the plaintiff recovered because the negligent dust materially contributed to the disease.

Material Contribution Test

An exception to the strict "but for" test where a plaintiff succeeds in establishing causation by proving that the defendant's breach of duty materially contributed to the indivisible injury suffered.

McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1

A case where an employee contracted dermatitis after being exposed to brick dust and denied washing facilities by his employer; the House of Lords held that proving the employer's breach materially increased the risk of injury was sufficient.

Material Increase of Risk Test

A causation doctrine established in McGhee and Fairchild where a defendant is held liable if their breach of duty substantially elevated the likelihood of the plaintiff suffering harm, even if definitive mechanical proof is medically impossible.

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32

A landmark case where employees contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos dust across multiple successive employers; the House of Lords relaxed the "but for" rule to hold each employer liable for materially increasing the risk.

Single-Agent Condition (Fairchild Exception)

The strict legal limitation requiring that competing potential causes of an injury must be identical agents (such as all being asbestos fibres) before the material increase of risk test can be used to infer factual causation.

Quinn v Mid-Western Health Board [2005] 4 IR 1

An Irish Supreme Court case refusing to apply the Fairchild exception to brain damage in a delayed infant delivery, holding the traditional "but for" test applied because evidence showed injuries preceded the negligence and involved different potential sources.

Novus Actus Interveniens

A new, independent intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's negligence and the ultimate damage, relieving the original defendant of liability.

Breslin v Corcoran [2003] 2 IR 203

An Irish Supreme Court case where an unlocked car left with keys in the ignition was stolen by a joyrider who crashed into a pedestrian; the car owner was not liable because the careless driving of the thief broke the chain of causation.

Fennelly J's Test for Intervening Third-Party Acts

The principle from Breslin v Corcoran that a defendant is not liable for damage caused by an intervening independent act of another unless that damage was "the very kind of thing which he was bound to expect and guard against."

Direct Consequences Rule

The early remoteness standard from Re Polemis providing that once a defendant is guilty of negligence, they are liable for all direct physical consequences traceable to the act, regardless of whether that type of damage was foreseeable.

Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560

A case where stevedores dropped a wooden plank into a ship's hold, causing a spark that ignited petrol vapour and destroyed the ship; the Court of Appeal held the defendants liable because the total loss directly resulted from their negligence.

Scrutton LJ's Dictum on Remoteness (Re Polemis)

The legal statement that reasonable foreseeability determines whether an act is negligent in the first place, but once an act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation or kind of damage was not foreseen is immaterial if directly traceable.

The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] 1 AC 388

A Privy Council case overruling Re Polemis by establishing that reasonable foreseeability of the kind of damage is the criterion for remoteness; defendants who spilled oil in a harbour were not liable for a subsequent fire because fire damage was unforeseeable.

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837

A House of Lords case holding that a defendant remains liable if the kind or general type of damage was reasonably foreseeable (burn injury), even if the exact sequence of events or precise mechanism (a paraffin lamp explosion) was unforeseeable.

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1006

A case establishing that foreseeability of the general nature of the harm will suffice to satisfy the remoteness test under the Wagon Mound doctrine.

Egg Shell Skull Rule

The tort rule ("take your victim as you find him") stating that if the type of physical or psychological injury was foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the injury resulting from the plaintiff's pre-existing, vulnerable condition.

Burke v John Paul & Co [1967] IR 277

An Irish Supreme Court case where a worker developed a hernia due to an unknown congenital weakness while exerting force on a machine with blunt blades; the employer was held liable under the egg-shell skull rule despite the weakness being unforeseeable.