Torts - Negligence - Causation

Front 1

'But for' test

Back 1

Most basic test for causation.

Front 2

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Mgmt

Back 2

Night watch men show up at hospital complaining of sickness. They keep sicking everywhere, but the nurse on duty sends them away, assuming they are mere drunken wastrels. However, they were poison'd!! One of them subsequently died. Failed on causation - even if they had received treatment they wouldn't have survived.

Front 3

Duffy v Rooney & Dunnes Stores

Back 3

Girl catches fire after having been left unattended by grampa. Grampa liable. Dunnes Stores not - despite the lack of label there was no causal link between this and her immolation. Other items of clothing had such labels and this did not prevent the incident.

Front 4

Quigley v Complex Tooling and Moulding

Back 4

Man suffers bullying and harassment at work. Depression. Sues employers for negligence. Had been bullied, employers were negligent, but fails on causation - depression actually caused by unfair dismissal litigation.

Front 5

Breslin v Corcoran

Back 5

Man leaves car unlocked on busy street - car is stolen. Pedestrian is run over. Sues owner for negligence. Claim fails. It was foreseeable that his car would be stolen, but not foreseeable that it would be driven negligently. Novus actus interveniens - breaks the chain of causation.

Front 6

Alternate approach

Back 6

Material contribution.

Front 7

McGhee v National Coal Board

Back 7

Man working in kilns - covered in brick dust. Develops dermatitis. Sues employers for negligence - did not provide showers. However, it was unclear that this had in fact caused the dermatitis. Court did not let this stop them from imposing liability. Material contribution - the employer had greatly increased the chances of him developing this illness and could therefore be held liable.

Front 8

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Board

Back 8

Employee had worked at several funeral homes, had been exposed to asbestos in several different places. It was unclear when the illness developed exactly. The courts applied the material contribution test and imposed liability on each of the employers. Less of an injustice than allowing no redress.

Front 9

Causation and Loss of Chance

Back 9

Yes

Front 10

Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority

Back 10

Plaintiff falls from tree - misdiagnosis of problem. Develops disability. His chances dropped from 25% to a certainty of developing this condition. Sues for negligence. Fails on causation - balance of probabilities.

Front 11

Gregg v Scott

Back 11

Malignant tumor misdiagnosis - chance of survival drops from 42% to 25%. Applies Hotson and rules that he cannot succeed as he had not shown causation on the balance of probabilities.

Front 12

Philp v Ryan (IRELAND)

Back 12

Misdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Aggravated damages and also damages for loss of opportunity. Balance of probabilities applies to past events that did or did not occur. This is to do with potential of recovery/future events. Therefore, the balance of probabilities does not

Front 13

Quinn v Midwestern Health Board

Back 13

Born at 39 weeks severely disabled. Plaintiff claims that had he been delivered at 35 weeks the brain damage could have been entirely avoided. Different theories put forward by the defendants. HC judge unable to decide between competing theories - therefore, p failed to discharge the onus of proof. SC says this is fine, situation requiring the relaxation of the rules of causation does not apply here. P never raised "material contribution" argument at trial, not fair to do so now.

Front 14

Causation and Remoteness

Back 14

Yes

Front 15

Direct Consequences

Back 15

Re Polemis - spark from falling plank starts fire, burns down the ship. Liable for all direct consequences.

Front 16

Reasonable Foreseeability

Back 16

The Wagon Mound - Oil negligently discharged in Sydney harbour lots of stuff is burned and siht. Only liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable, not for all direct consequences.

Hughes v Lord Advocate - Boy causes explosion by accidentally dropping paraffin lamp down manhole. Held liable - the type of damage is the thing which must be foreseeable, not the exact consequences.

Front 17

Egg Shell Skull Rule

Back 17

You take the defendant as you find them.

Front 18

Burke v John Paul Co

Back 18

Man working on a big cutty thing cutting metal and stuff. Blunt blade means he has to exert extra pressure. Develops a hernia. It was foreseeable that some damage would be caused, they are liable for all the damage.