Legal Causation

Page 1

LEGAL CAUSATION

break into two different factors:

a. Remoteness - should D be responsible for the kind of harm C has suffered?

b. Intervening act - where D has triggered a chain of events through his negligence, should he be responsible for everything he triggered or should his liability stop at an earlier point?

a. Remoteness

The old case was Re Polemis - if D is negligent, he should be liable for whatever happens next

if D is negligent, D will only be liable for the kind of harm which was reasonably foreseeable - cite The Wagon Mound (No 1)

if it was unforeseeable, no matter how negligent D is, C cannot claim

Viscount Simonds: Re Polemis is too expensive and claimant-friendly, it does not sit in well with the fault principle which underlies fault principle

In PROPERTY DAMAGE cases, court has stricter approach and is very specific about the kind of harm that needs to be foreseen

In PERSONAL INJURY cases, court has more generous approach in Hughes while interpreting the kind of harm that need to be foreseeable

the exact way in which the injury happened was foreseeable or not is irrelevant - Hughes v Lord Advocate

However, court took more restrictive approach in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co & Tremain v Pike

much more specific to the kind of harm that need to be foreseen

Court again took a generous approach in Page & Jolley

some personal injury was foreseeable is sufficient, whether it is psychiatric or physical - cite Page v Smith

if follow Doughty & Tremain, would have failed because what was reasonably foreseen is only physical harm during the accident

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council return to finding from Hughes - exact way of how it happened is irrelevant

criticism - Wagon Mound was introduced to restrict the Re Polemis rule, but recently it has been interpreted quite generously, criticism on whether it had made much difference in practice

* the most recent trend is to take generous approach with PERSONAL INJURY context. While in PROPERTY DAMAGE cases, it is still more specific.

EXCEPTION to Wagon Mound

Thin skull rule - You have to take your victim as you find them

As long as the kind of harm was foreseeable, D will be liable for the full extent of injury even though the extent of the injury was not unforeseeable - cite Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd

Not only apply to physical state, also applies to financial position

D will be liable for the full extent of the loss if C ends up suffering much worse lose because they are in a poor financial position - Lagden v O' Connor

Value judgment is the basis of legal causation - it decides whether D will be liable regardless the fact that they proved factual causation

'Kind of harm' is a control device - court can define it broadly or narrowly - matter of policy

The wider the court draw the legal causation, the more people will be able to get compensation through tort system

The narrower the legal causation, more people will struggle to get into the tort system

Page 2

b. Intervening Act

Can take in 2 forms

First type

Deliberate act of third party (Crime - 3rd party's criminal act after D's negligence) OR

Deliberate act of claimant (Suicide)

Second type

Negligent act of third party (Road accidents, Medical treatment, Rescue attempt - Someone else's negligence after D's negligence) OR

Negligent act of claimant

THIRD PARTY

i. Deliberate act of third party - Crime

Question of reasonable foreseeability, policy & instinct - Lamb v Camden London Borough Council

Oliver LJ: Question of reasonable foreseeability: Was it reasonably foreseeable as a result of D's negligence, the chain of events occur?

Lord Denning: Question of policy: Should C have taken insurance? eg. was the insurance widely available?

Watkins LJ: Matter of instinct: as to an instinctive feeling, is it appropriate to hold D responsible for the chain of events that follow?

* IN PROBLEM QUESTION, YOU HAVE TO DIFFERENTIATE THE ORIGINAL INJURIES D CAUSED WITH WHAT HAPPENED AFTERWARDS

* IF THE QUESTION INVOLVED SOME CRIMINALS THAT CAUSED DAMAGE AFTER D'S NEGLIGENCE, LOOK AT LAMB AND APPLY THE 3 DIFFERENT APPROACHES - OUTLINE THE 3 DIFFERENT A[[ROACHES, THEN APPLY THEM TO SEE IF THEY WILL STILL REACH THE SAME OUTCOME

- Same direction - follow the answer of the outcome

- Different direction - say the law in this area is a little bit unclear because of the judicial reasoning in Lamb

ii. Negligent act of third party - Road accidents

In Rouse v Squires, COC wasn't broken. Court felt that the chain of events would not have occurred f D1 had not been negligent

In Knightley v Johns, COC was broken. Court applied the test 'whether the whole sequence was a natural and probable consequence and a reasonably foreseeable result of D1's negligence.

* WHEN APPLYING THESE CASES IN PROBLEM QUESTION, HAS TO REASON BY ANALOGY

* In Rouse, Buckley LJ did admit that there is no clear line in deciding whether COC should have broken.

- GOING BACK TO WHAT WATKINS LJ SAID, THERE IS QUITE A LOT OF INSTINCT GOING ON RATHER THAN APPLICATION OF STRICT LEGAL RULES

- FAIRNESS? POLICY?

ii. Negligent act of third party - Medical treatment

Unlike criminal act and road accident, it is very unlikely to break COC unless there is gross negligence

If C has an adverse reaction to medical treatment which is properly administered (eg. allergic to treatment), it is very unlikely to break COC

If the medical treatment is not properly administered (medical negligence), COC can be broken only if there has been gross negligence on the part of the doctor - cite Webb v Barclays Bank

ii. Negligent act of third party - Rescue attempt

CLAIMANT

I. Deliberate act of claimant - Suicide

if it seems to be part of the overall duty of the D to make sure C doesn't commit suicide, COC won't be broken - Reeves v Metropolitan Commissioner

if C committed suicide as a result of depression flowing from D's negligence, COC won't be broken - Corr v IBC

IN PROBLEM QUESTION, IT DEPENDS ON THE FACT.

- IF C HAS ACTED VOLUNTARILY TO COMMIT SUICIDE, COC COULD BE BROKEN

- IF C HAS NOT ACTED VOLUNTARILY, COC COULD NOT BE BROKEN (not completely disconnected from the original accident which D was responsible)

ii. Negligent act of claimant

if C acted unreasonably by putting himself in a vulnerable position, COC MAY be broken - McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts

* IN PROBLEM QUESTION, IT DEPENDS ON THE FACT (C's negligence won't always break COC. Legal principle is C's negligence MAY break COC, but it very much depends on the situation - SERIOUSNESS OF THE NEGLIGENCE

* BE CAREFUL NOT TO USE THESE CASES AS AUTHORITY THAT OTHER CASES WILL BE DECIDED IN THE SAME WAY. WHAT IS BINDING IS THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT APPLIED, NOT THE OUTCOME OF THE CASES THEMSELVES.