LAW OF TORT

THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE

CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE

FACTUAL AND LEGAL CAUSATION, MULTIPLE CAUSES AND INTERVENING ACTS

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.

INTRODUCTION TO CAUSATION

Position of Causation in Negligence

• Even where:

• A duty of care exists.

• A breach of duty exists.

• The claimant must still prove that the breach actually caused the damage suffered.

• A defendant is not liable simply because they acted negligently.

• The claimant must establish a connection between:

• The defendant’s breach.

• The claimant’s injury or loss.

Why Causation Is Important

• Prevents unfair liability.

• Ensures defendants are only liable for damage they actually caused.

• Limits the scope of negligence.

• Acts as an important control mechanism.

TYPES OF CAUSATION

Two Main Forms

Factual Causation

• Did the defendant’s conduct actually cause the damage?

Legal Causation

• Is the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the damage sufficiently close for liability?

FACTUAL CAUSATION

Definition

• Factual causation examines whether the defendant’s breach was the actual cause of the claimant’s damage.

• It asks:

Did the defendant’s negligence actually cause the injury?

THE “BUT FOR” TEST

General Rule

• Courts normally use the “but for” test.

Question Asked

But for the defendant’s negligence, would the claimant have suffered the damage?

Outcome

If Damage Would Not Have Occurred

• Factual causation established.

If Damage Would Have Occurred Anyway

• Factual causation not established.

Leading Case: Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

Facts

• Three night-watchmen attended hospital complaining of illness.

• Doctor negligently failed to examine them.

• One later died from arsenic poisoning.

Claim

• Hospital accused of negligence.

Decision

• No liability.

Reason

• Medical evidence showed death would have occurred even if treatment had been provided.

Principle

• Defendant not liable if damage would have occurred anyway.

Significance

• Classic application of the “but for” test.

Importance of the But For Test

Advantages

• Simple.

• Logical.

• Easy to apply.

Limitation

• Difficult where several causes operate simultaneously.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.

MULTIPLE CAUSES

Definition

• Multiple causes arise where more than one factor contributes to the claimant’s injury.

• These situations create difficulties for the traditional but for test.

CONCURRENT CAUSES

Meaning

• Two or more causes operate together.

• Each contributes to the damage.

Leading Case: Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw

Facts

• Employee contracted pneumoconiosis.

• Dust exposure came from:

• Innocent source.

• Negligent source.

Issue

• Impossible to identify exact source causing disease.

Decision

• Employer liable.

Principle

• Defendant liable where breach materially contributed to injury.

Rule Established

• Material Contribution Test.

Significance

• Important exception to strict but for test.

MATERIAL CONTRIBUTION TEST

Rule

• Defendant liable if negligence made a material contribution to injury.

Meaning of Material

• More than minimal.

• More than trivial.

• Need not be the sole cause.

SUCCESSIVE CAUSES

Meaning

• Separate causes occur one after another.

• Courts determine which causes contributed to final damage.

Leading Case: Baker v Willoughby

Facts

• Defendant injured claimant’s leg.

• Claimant later suffered separate injury during armed robbery.

Decision

• Original defendant remained liable.

Principle

• Original tortfeasor remains liable where later event does not remove original damage.

Significance

• Important case on successive causes.

Leading Case: Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd

Facts

• Claimant injured at work.

• Later developed unrelated spinal disease.

Decision

• Damages reduced.

Principle

• Natural illness can limit defendant’s liability.

Significance

• Distinguished from Baker v Willoughby.

SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY

Problem

• Sometimes impossible to identify which exposure caused injury.

Leading Case: McGhee v National Coal Board

Facts

• Employee exposed to brick dust.

• Employer failed to provide washing facilities.

• Dermatitis developed.

Decision

• Employer liable.

Principle

• Material increase in risk may establish causation.

Significance

• Expanded causation principles.

Leading Case: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd

Facts

• Employee exposed to asbestos by several employers.

• Mesothelioma developed.

• Impossible to identify which employer caused disease.

Decision

• Employers liable.

Principle

• Material increase in risk sufficient.

Significance

• Landmark mesothelioma case.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.

LEGAL CAUSATION

Definition

• Legal causation determines whether the defendant should be held legally responsible for the damage.

• Even if factual causation exists, liability may still be denied.

Requirements of Legal Causation

Defendant’s Breach Must Be a Significant Cause

• Cause need not be sole cause.

• Cause must be more than minimal.

Leading Case: R v Cheshire

Facts

• Victim shot by defendant.

• Medical treatment complications followed.

Decision

• Defendant remained liable.

Principle

• Original act remained significant cause.

Significance

• Demonstrates legal causation principles.

NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS

INTERVENING ACTS

Definition

• Novus actus interveniens means:

“A new intervening act.”

• Refers to an event occurring after defendant’s negligence.

• The event breaks the chain of causation.

Effect

If Chain Broken

• Defendant no longer liable for subsequent damage.

If Chain Not Broken

• Defendant remains liable.

TYPES OF INTERVENING ACTS

1. ACT OF A THIRD PARTY

General Rule

• Independent third-party conduct may break chain of causation.

Leading Case: Knightley v Johns

Facts

• Road accident occurred.

• Police officer negligently directed another officer.

• Second accident resulted.

Decision

• Chain of causation broken.

Principle

• Independent negligent third-party conduct may break chain.

Significance

• Important authority on third-party intervention.

2. ACT OF THE CLAIMANT

General Rule

• Claimant’s own conduct may break chain.

Leading Case: McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd

Facts

• Claimant suffered leg injury.

• Later attempted dangerous descent of stairs.

• Further injury occurred.

Decision

• Chain broken.

Principle

• Unreasonable conduct by claimant may break causation.

Significance

• Key authority on claimant intervention.

Rescue Situations

General Rule

• Reasonable rescue attempts usually do not break chain.

Leading Case: Haynes v Harwood

Facts

• Defendant left horses unattended.

• Horses bolted.

• Policeman injured while stopping them.

Decision

• Defendant liable.

Principle

• Reasonable rescue attempts foreseeable.

Significance

• Rescue acts usually preserve causation.

3. ACT OF NATURE

General Rule

• Extraordinary natural events may break causation.

Requirement

• Event must be unforeseeable and independent.

MEDICAL TREATMENT AS AN INTERVENING ACT

General Rule

• Ordinary medical negligence rarely breaks chain.

Leading Case: R v Smith

Facts

• Victim stabbed.

• Poor medical treatment followed.

Decision

• Original attacker liable.

Principle

• Original wound remained operating cause.

Significance

• Medical mistakes usually insufficient.

Leading Case: R v Jordan

Facts

• Victim stabbed.

• Grossly inappropriate medical treatment administered.

Decision

• Chain broken.

Principle

• Exceptionally negligent treatment may break chain.

Significance

• Rare example of medical intervention breaking causation.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.

REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE

Definition

• Remoteness determines whether damage is too distant for liability.

• Even where causation exists, damage must not be too remote.

Purpose

• Prevents limitless liability.

• Restricts compensation to foreseeable consequences.

THE FORESEEABILITY TEST

Leading Case: The Wagon Mound (No 1)

Facts

• Oil spilled into harbour.

• Oil later ignited.

• Extensive damage occurred.

Decision

• Defendant not liable.

Principle

• Defendant liable only for reasonably foreseeable damage.

Rule Established

• Foreseeability test for remoteness.

Significance

• Leading authority on remoteness.

What Must Be Foreseeable?

Exact Extent of Damage?

• No.

Exact Manner of Damage?

• No.

Type or Kind of Damage?

• Yes.

Leading Case: Hughes v Lord Advocate

Facts

• Child injured after lamp explosion.

Decision

• Defendant liable.

Principle

• Exact sequence of events need not be foreseeable.

Significance

• Only type of harm must be foreseeable.

THE THIN SKULL RULE

Principle

• Defendant must take claimant as found.

• Unexpected vulnerability does not reduce liability.

Leading Case: Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd

Facts

• Minor burn activated pre-existing cancer condition.

Decision

• Defendant liable for full consequences.

Principle

• Thin Skull Rule.

Significance

• Important exception to remoteness limitations.

EXAMINATION FOCUS

AO1 KNOWLEDGE

Students should know:

• Factual causation.

• But for test.

• Legal causation.

• Material contribution.

• Material increase in risk.

• Intervening acts.

• Remoteness.

• Thin Skull Rule.

• Key authorities.

AO2 APPLICATION

Students should be able to:

• Apply but for test.

• Identify multiple causes.

• Determine whether chain of causation broken.

• Apply remoteness principles.

• Apply Thin Skull Rule.

AO3 EVALUATION

Strengths

• Promotes fairness.

• Limits excessive liability.

• Balances claimant and defendant interests.

Criticisms

• Causation rules can be complex.

• Multiple cause cases often produce uncertainty.

• Policy considerations sometimes influence outcomes.

EXAM QUICK REVISION LIST

Factual Causation

• But for test.

• Barnett.

Multiple Causes

• Bonnington Castings.

• McGhee.

• Fairchild.

Intervening Acts

• Knightley.

• McKew.

• Haynes.

Medical Treatment

• Smith.

• Jordan.

• Cheshire.

Remoteness

• Wagon Mound.

• Hughes.

Thin Skull Rule

• Smith v Leech Brain.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.