A-Level Tort: Negligence (Causation)

Front 1

Causation

Back 1

It must be proven that the breach was in a matter of fact, a cause of the damage suffered by the defendant

Front 2

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

Back 2

Established the test for Causation:

"But-For Test"

Front 3

The "But-For" Test

Back 3

Would the damage have occurred but-for the break of duty?

Front 4

Situations where Causation was unclear

Back 4

Chester v Afshar

Claimant did not clarify that she would not go through the operation had the doctor informed her of the risk - she would have only sought a second opinion

Front 5

Causation through Multiple Causes

Back 5

Where there are multiple causes, causation is proven if the risk was materially increased by the defendant's negligence:

McGhee v National Coal Board (1972)

Front 6

Wilsher v Essex Health Authority (1988)

Back 6

Facts: Premature baby, suffered several conditions, and twice was given too much oxygen. The baby either suffered blindness from it's preexisiting conditions or the oxygen.

Principle: Claimant must prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant's negligence materially cause the harm, not just increase risk.

Front 7

Causation (Intervening Events)

Back 7

Where there is an intervening event but the original tort is still a cause of damage, the defendant is still liable.

Bakers v Willoughby (1982)

Claimant could've avoided being shot if one leg wasn't damage by defendant's negligence earlier before robbery.

Front 8

Test for Remoteness

Back 8

Claimants must prove that the damage was not remote (Not too far from possible in the breach of duty)

Front 9

The Direct Consequence Test

Back 9

Re Polemis (1921)

Defendant's liable for all damage as a direct consequence of their negligence, even if more serious than foreseen

Facts: Petrol leakage, defendant's dropped plank - caused spark - burnt down whole ship

Front 10

Reasonable Foreseeability Test

Back 10

Wagon Mound #1 case (1961)

Facts: Oil leaked from D's ship - lit and caused damage to nearby ship - days later caused same incident to another ship.

Held: Defendant's only liable for damage reasonably foreseeable to be caused

Front 11

Extent of the Damage

Back 11

"Eggshell-Skull Rule"

Smith v Leech Brain (to be remembered)

Defendant is liable for damage even if more serious due to a condition of the claimant.

Front 12

Risk of Damage

Back 12

Wagon Mound No. 2 Case (1967)

Facts similar to Wagon Mound No. 1

As long as the type of damage was foreseeable and not too remote, it did not matter if the chances happening were small.

Front 13

Intervening Acts (Lessens remoteness)

Back 13

Best illustrated in:

Scott v Shepherd (1773)

Facts: Firework thrown into a market stall - stall owner threw it to the next - subsequently reached the end and exploded - foreseeable that the stall owners would toss, thus not too remote

Front 14

Res Ipsa loquitur

Back 14

"The facts speak for themselves"

Scott v London and St. Katherine's Docks (1865) Facts: Claimant injured by bag of sugar that fell from a warehouse window.

Held: The bags of sugar could not have flew out themselves, thus defendant is clearly responsible.