Legal Causation and Negligence

Exam Preparation Notes on Legal Causation and Negligence

Overview of Causation in Law

  • Causation: Refers to the relationship between the breach of a duty and the resulting damage.
    • Factual Causation: Was the defendant's breach the cause of the claimant's loss?
    • Legal Causation: Should the defendant be held liable for all damage caused?
    • Important concepts to understand: actionable damage, duty of care, breach of duty.

Tests of Causation

1. The ‘But For’ Test
  • Definition: Used to determine if the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach.
  • Example Case: Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988]
    • Multiple potential causes, insufficient evidence that the defendant’s breach caused the damage.
2. The ‘Material Contribution to Harm’ Test
  • Applicable when the ‘but for’ test is not satisfied, especially relevant in industrial diseases.
  • Case Study: Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956]
    • Claimant exposed to both innocent and guilty silica dust. Defendant’s breach materially contributed to harm suffered.
  • Additional Cases:
    • Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008]: Established that defendants can materially contribute to a claimant's physical weakness which leads to further harm.
    • Williams v Bermuda Hospital Board [2016]: Raised concerns about potential increased negligence claims against hospitals.
3. The ‘Material Increase in Risk of Harm’ Test
  • Used in exceptional cases when the ‘but for’ test fails, mainly in asbestos-related diseases.
  • Case Study: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002]
    • All former employers who increased risk of developing mesothelioma can be sued jointly and severally.
  • Notable Legislation: s 3 Compensation Act 2006: Holds former employers liable for mesothelioma claims based on risk increase.

Remoteness of Damage

  • Remoteness: Refers to whether the type of harm caused was reasonably foreseeable.
  • Key Principles:
    • Current standard: type/kind of harm must be foreseeable at the point of breach.
    • Reference Case: The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] - Fire damage not foreseeable; fouling damage foreseeable.
  • Eggshell Skull Rule: Legal principle that a defendant is liable for the full extent of a plaintiff's injury, even if it is different from what was foreseeable.
    • Reference Cases: Smith v Leech Brain [1962], Robinson v Post Office [1974].

Novus Actus Interveniens (New Act Intervening)

  • Refers to an intervening event that breaks the chain of causation.
  • Types of events that can break the chain:
    • Actions of third parties.
    • Intentional acts usually break the chain unless the defendant was to guard against them (e.g., Stansbie v Troman [1948]).
    • Ordinary negligent acts may not break the chain; however, gross negligence probably will (e.g., Knightley v Johns [1982]).
    • Actions of the claimant.
    • Generally, if the claimant’s actions worsen their situation, their damages are reduced (e.g., McKew v Holland [1969]).
    • Exceptionally, intentional self-harm does not break the chain if it is a result of a condition caused by the defendant (e.g., Corr v IBC Vehicles [2008]).

Causation in Problem Questions

  • Steps to analyze:
    1. Determine if factual causation is present. If not, no liability.
    2. If factual causation exists, assess legal causation.
    • Consider if damage is too remote or if a novus actus is present.
    • Always evaluate remoteness unless a clear novus actus is evident.

Practical Tips

  • Engage with revision materials focusing on key cases and tests outlined.
  • Prepare examples and counterexamples for each test of causation.
  • Review the differences between factual and legal causation along with principles of remoteness.