Causation

Causation

1. But for test (causation in fact)

   • the damage would not have been caused, but for the defendants negligence
     • BARNETT - 3 night watchmen went to A&E with vomiting + stomach pains after drinking tea. DR sent them away and told them to call their doctor in the morning. during the night one of the men died, from what was later discovered to be arsenic poisoning. the hospital was not liable, even though in clear breach of their duty because the claimant would have died anyway even if he had received treatment

2. Problem of multiple causes

   • but for test is difficult to apply to multiple cause cases
   • difficult for courts to pinpoint exact cause - sometimes leaving C without compensation
     • WILSHIRE - DR administered excess oxygen leaving a baby blind. this was one of 6 possible causes of the blindness - could not be said to fall squarely within the risk created by the defendant so it would be unfair to impose liability

3. FAIRCHILD - claimants suffered mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos dust over many years working for a number of different employers. court accepted medical evidence could not identify the cause of the disease which could be cased by a single fibre or an accumulation. the court could not identify who was responsible so the claim was rejected

4. MCGEE - claimant contracted dermatitis - possibly as a result of working in a brick kiln. the board were not liable for exposure during work hours. but liable for materially increasing the risk because of their failure to provided washing facilities even though it could not be shown providing the facilities would have prevented the disease. reason - since the employer was negligent, the burden should shift to them do disprove the causal link

5. PERFORMANCE CARS - D negligently drove vehicle so it collided with rolls-royce, the RR was also negligently hit by another car. court held this did not relieve the original D of liability for the respray that had been made necessary by the first collision

6. JOBLING - as a result of employers neg claimant slipped on floor and injured back losing 50% of earning capacity. later developed crippling back disorder - unrelated to fall - court help D was only liable for damages up to the disorder because any additional loss of income would have occurred anyway.

7. BAKER - claimant knocked down by car + suffered stiff leg - then forced to take reduced income. at later time he was shot in the leg during armed robbery + had to have leg amputated. HoL rejected claim driver was only liable up to the amputation. loss of earnings was permanent + had resulted from original injury. armed robbery + amputation had not altered this fact even though eventual damage was different + worse

8. BARKER - died from mesothelioma, exposed to asbestos fibres on 3 occasions, 2 different employers and self employed. D argued the disease could have been contracted during self employment + damages should be apportioned so D does not have to pay full damages . under fairchild the trial judge allowed a 20 reduction in damages for contributory neg during self employment. HoL held D could only be liable for damages equivalent to share of the risk of contracting mesothelioma and damages should be apportioned accordingly

9. WAGON MOUND 1 - spilt oil mixed with cotton wadding and sparks from welding caused the wadding to ignite and ships in the wharf caught fire. since the oil had sigh a high flash point, the ignition was considered unlikely. trial judge - since some damage was foreseeab

   • WAGON MOUND 2 - owners of 2 ships damaged - trial judge showed narrow approach to foreseeability. although fire was foreseeable, it was so remote it did not give rise to liability. privy council - provided the type of damage was foreseeable, the degree of likelihood is irrelevant

10. CUTLER - C suffered grazed ankle from employer neg. - already suffered a varicose condition + ulcer formed on area of graze = operation. D liable for graze not operation

11. Novus Actus

    • intervening act of C
      • MCKEW - C suffered injury leaving him with a weak leg as a result of D neg. he later tried to climb stairs with no hand rail without asking for help when he fell and suffered further injuries. court held this was a novus actus
      • WEILAND - C suffered injury due to D neg, leaving her wearing a surgical collar. this restricted her movement and seriously impaired her use of spectacles. she fell down the stairs and there was held to be no break in the chain because this was foreseeable. the D were liable
    • act of nature
      • CARSLOGIE - C's ship collided with D's, after a delay in repairs the ship suffered further damage from a heavy storm. the court rejected the claim that the D should be liable for both sets of damage. the storm was a genuine break in the chain of causation + D could not be held liable for full extent of damage
    • act of third party
      • KNIGHTLY - D negligently crashed his car blocking a tunnel, popo in charge sent another popo against the flow of traffic to block off tunnel at other end. this causes a second accident injuring the police officer. the D was not liable for the injuries to the officer they were through the fault of the other officer

12. HOTSON - boy fractured hip falling out of tree. hospital neg failed to make correct diagnosis, later developed deformity of hip. expert evident - 75% of development even with correct diagnosis. awarded 25% damages

13. GREGG - c went to GP about lump under arm - failed to refer him to hospital, saw another GP 9 months later in considerable pain - referred -cancer which had spread

14. SIENKIEWICZ - deceased died of mesothelioma. worked 18 years where asbestos is used - judge held negligently exposed + exposed in town she lived in.

15. RE POLEMIS - charterers filled ship with containers containing benzene which leaked filling hold with vapor, when being unloaded plank of wood was dropped igniting spark = destroyed ship. arbitrator - this was too unlikely a consequence though some damage was foreseeable - liable

16. BRADFORD - c suffered frostbite on long journey from exteter - bedford in severe weather in van with no working heater. D argued this was too remote and unforeseeable a consequence. court held some cold related illness was foreseeable - liable