Liability in Negligence for Injury to People and Damage to Property: Negligence - Causation

Question 1

What does factual causation involve? Does all factual causation involve legal causation?

Answer 1

• Involves showing the link between the defendant’s act or omission and the injury or loss caused
• Not all factual causation involves legal causation

Question 2

What does legal causation refer to? For instance?

Answer 2

• When the defendant is legally responsible for the injury or loss
• For instance, for the defendant to be liable for an injury it must be shown that the reasonable person could foresee the injury occurring

Question 3

Give an example case for legal causation

Answer 3

• Bhamra v Dubb (2010)

Question 4

What happened in Bhamra v Dubb (2010)?

Answer 4

• Dubb catered for a Sikh wedding. knowing full well that none of the food should have contained egg (forbidden to Sikhs)
• Some of the food contained egg, which Mr Bhamra had an allergic reaction to and died
• Mr Dubb held to have breached his duty of care

Question 5

For factual causation, what must the claimant show?

Answer 5

• A causal link between the defendant’s act or omission and the damage caused

Question 6

What is the test used to establish the factual cause?

Answer 6

• Sine qua non (the ‘but for’ test)

Question 7

What happened in Blyth v the Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks (1856)?

Answer 7

• Birmingham waterworks installed a water main on Blyth’s street
• 25 years later it sprung a leak due to frost
• There was no evidence of negligence
• HELD - Birmingham Waterworks did not breach their duty. It was simply an accident (no causation)

Question 8

Explain the but for test

Answer 8

• It must be shown that but for the defendant’s act or omission the claimant would not have suffered damage or loss

Question 9

Give four cases in which the but for test was used

Answer 9

• Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969)
• Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1965)
• McGhee v National Coal Board (1973)
• Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (2003)

Question 10

What happened in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969)?

Answer 10

• Man went to hospital but was turned away
• Later died of arsenic poisoning
• The hospital was not liable as he would not have lived even if he had been treated

Question 11

What happened in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1965)?

Answer 11

• Claimant fell seriously ill after working for many years in dusty conditions in a foundry
• There were 2 types of dust, one of which should have been extracted by law
• Defendants held liable as although there were two possible causes of the illness, both kinds of dust contributed

Question 12

What happened in McGhee v National Coal Board (1973)?

Answer 12

• Claimant employed to clean kilns
• No wash facilities provided
• Dermatitis (brick dust)
• HoL found employer liable for negligence as they had materially increased the risk by not providing wash facilities

Question 13

What happened in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (2003)?

Answer 13

• Employee (deceased) had been exposed to asbestos by several different employers
• Contracted cancer as result
• HoL decided each employer who exposed him to asbestos was liable as they had each materially increased the risk of harm towards the claimant

Question 14

What does loss of chance refer to? What does this usually involve?

Answer 14

• Cases where the defendant’s negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to avoid a loss
• Usually involves medical negligence

Question 15

Give two cases for loss of chance due to medical negligence

Answer 15

• Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority (1988)

- Greg v Scott (2005)

Question 16

What happened in Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority (1988)? Were damages awarded? Why?

Answer 16

• School boy fell from tree injuring his hip
• Hospital failed to diagnose the fracture. Without this negligence he would have had a 25% chance of a full recovery
• As chance of recovery was reduced by less than 50%, no damages were awarded

Question 17

What happened in Gregg v Scott (2005)? Were damages awarded? Why?

Answer 17

• Claimant’s cancerous tumour was incorrectly diagnosed as benign, which led to a 9 month delay in treatment
• No damages as in a case like this they will only be awarded if the initial prospects were 50% or higher

Question 18

What does Novus Actus Interveniens mean?

Answer 18

• A new intervening act

Question 19

The link between the defendant’s act or omission and the injury or loss suffered is often referred to as what?

Answer 19

• The chain of causation

Question 20

What does it mean if an intervening act breaks the chain of causation?

Answer 20

• The defendant will not be liable for the injury or loss suffered by the claimant

Question 21

Give three cases where a novus actus interveniens broke the chain of causation

Answer 21

• Knightley v Johns (1982)
• Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982)
• McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd (1969)

Question 22

Give a case where a novus actus interveniens did not break the chain of causation (as in there wasn’t one) What did the CoA say on appeal?

Answer 22

• Baker v Willoughby (1969)

- It was in fact a novus actus interveniens and contributory negligence made the claimant responsible for 50%

Question 23

What happened in Knightley v Johns (1982)?

Answer 23

• Senior police officer instructed a constable to drive the wrong way through a tunnel to close it (John’s car had overturned in the tunnel), which resulted in the constable crashing into a car travelling through the tunnel
• Johns not liable, but the senior officer was. His instructions led to the collision, and were a novus actus interveniens that broke the chain of causation

Question 24

What happened in Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982)? What case did it distinguish from?

Answer 24

• Claimant injured his back due to his employer’s negligence
• He later developed an unrelated spinal disease
• HoL said that the spinal disease was a novus actus interveniens and therefore the employer was no responsible for the losses incurred after the disease
• Distinguished from Baker v Willoughby (1969)

Question 25

What happened in Baker v Willoughby (1969)?

Answer 25

• Claimant knocked down by defendant’s car
• Sustained a severe leg injury and had to take a lower paid job
• 3 years later he was shot in the leg at work, and it had to be amputated
• Defence said shooting was a novus actus interveniens
• HoL disagreed and it was held that the claimant’s loss of earnings was a result of the original injury

Question 26

What happened in McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd (1969)?

Answer 26

• Claimant suffered a serious leg injury as a result of his employer’s negligence
• He later fell down the stairs
  HoL decided that going down the stairs without a handrail or assistance was a novus actus interveniens