Causation

Front 1

Cork v Kirby Maclean (1952)

Back 1

'But for' test.

Hint 1

C was working on a high gangway with no rails. He suffered an epileptic fit and fell. C argued lack of rails was cause. D argued epilepsy.

Court held that 'but for' lack of rails he would not have fallen.

Front 2

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969)

Back 2

'But for' test - medical

Hint 2

C died of arsenic poisoning. Was not examined by hospital BUT would have died anyway even if he had been examined = no causation

Front 3

Wilsher v Essex (1988)

Back 3

Multiple independent causes - burden of proof on C so more likely to fail if it cannot be proved which cause caused the loss.

Hint 3

A premature baby died. There were several natural reasons and one tortious reason this could have happened. The C had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Dr caused the damage but were unable to do this.

Front 4

Gregg v Scott (2005)

Back 4

Loss of chance (of recovery) - medical - has to exceed 50%

Hint 4

Failure to diagnose cancer by Dr but there was only 42% chance of recovery before medical neg so no causation.

Front 5

Spring v Guardian (1995)

Back 5

Loss of chance - economic

Hint 5

Negligent reference led to lack of job and work in sector = loss of chance

Front 6

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw (1956)

Back 6

Cumulative causes = material contribution test = if D's breach materially contributed to loss then they are liable for all of the loss.

Hint 6

C developed respiratory disease from working in a dusty environment. Half dust normal work, half negligent - impossible to say how much each had contributed to loss (but for fails)

Front 7

McGhee v National Coal Board (1973)

Back 7

Material contribution used.

Hint 7

C developed dermatitis from exposure to brick dust but this was part of normal work. But not providing washing facilities at work contributed to the loss.

Front 8

Bailey v MOD (2008)

Back 8

Material contribution - medical (unusual)

Hint 8

Natural causes and med neg caused loss. Couldn't put % on causes. Courts found material contribution of med neg.

Front 9

Fairchild v Glenhaven (2003)

Back 9

Special case: Mesothelioma (asbestos)

Hint 9

Mesothelioma is caused by one instance of asbestos not cumulative so impossible to know which employer had been negligent.

Courts to be fair found material contribution.

Compensation now governed by Compensation Act 2006 S 3

Front 10

Fitzgerald v Lane (1987)

Back 10

Split damages between defendants

Hint 10

Pedestrian hit by two cars at the same time. Damages reduced due to contributory neg of stepping into the road.

Front 11

Performance Cars v Abraham (1962)

Back 11

There is no causation if there is no new loss

Hint 11

One car was involved in two accidents both that required it to be resprayed. The second defendant was not liable as there was no causation, no new loss.

Front 12

Baker v Willoughby (1970)

Back 12

Double tort: first defendant continues liable

Hint 12

C's leg was injured in a road accident due to D's neg driving.

Subsequently C was shot during a robbery and had to have leg amputated.

Court held that 2nd tort did not break chain otherwise D's liability would cease.

Front 13

Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982)

Back 13

Tort + non-tort: breaks chain

Hint 13

D's negligence led to C's back injury. This was worsened by a subsequent illness.

Court held that D's liability ended when illness started.

Front 14

Novus Actus Intervenius

Back 14

An intervening act can break the chain of causation.

1. Act of God

2. Act of third party

3. Act of claimant

4. Medical negligence

Front 15

Humber Oil v Sivand (1998)

Back 15

Act of God must be independent and unforeseeable

Hint 15

The collapse of a sea bed during repairs to a harbour was foreseeable.

Front 16

Smith v Littlewoods (1987)

Back 16

Act of third party must be unforeseeable and not connected to D

Front 17

Robinson v Post Office

Back 17

Medical neg will only break chain if it is palpably wrong and grossly negligent

Hint 17

C was injured by D and then given a tetanus injection at hospital that he was allergic to. Did not break chain.

Front 18

Knightly v Johns (1982)

Back 18

Successful break in chain by third party

Hint 18

D caused a road traffic accident. A policeman inspector's subsequent neg caused injury to C. This broke the chain.

Front 19

Scott v Shepherd (1773)

The Famous Squib Case

Back 19

If a third party acts instinctively there is no break in causation.

Front 20

McKew v Holland (1969)

Back 20

Act of claimant must be unreasonable to break chain.

No clear rule, will be based on fairness.

Hint 20

C suffered leg injury due to neg of D which meant that it gave way easily. C was advised to only go down stairs with assistance. C walked down steps carrying child and leg gave way = break in chain.

Front 21

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carperts (1969)

Back 21

C's actions were not unreasonable and did not break chain.

Hint 21

C had injured her neck due to neg of D. Her neck brace restricted use of her glasses and consequently she fell down stairs and increased her injury. No break in chain.

Front 22

Corr v IBC Vehicles (2008)

Back 22

C suffered head injuries at work that led to PTSD. Six years later he committed suicide. Court held that D was liable for this. He had not broken chain.