Causation In Law Flashcards
What is causation in law?
Whether the kind/type of C’s damage was reasonably foreseeable?
Remoteness
Wagon Mound (no1)
Facts: • A large amount of oil spilled into Sydney Harbour
• wind and waves carried some oil to a nearby wharf
• Work was happening on the wharf and a cotton rag caught fire from molten metal falling from the wharf and ignited the oil
Judgment: Claim failed
L.P: • Damage too remote and not reasonably foreseeable
•TOO REMOTE
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Facts: • Underground Work was taking place and in the evening the hole was surrounded by a tent but left unguarded with lamps
• An 8 year old boy entered the tent and knocked one of the lamps into the hole
• this caused and explosion and the boy fall into the hole and was severely burned
Judgment: Claim successful
L.P: • Burns were a foreseeable type of damage therefore damage was not remote
Doughty v Turner
Facts: • D placed an asbestos cover on one of the cauldrons in his factory
• One of D’s employees knocked one of the covers into the cauldron
•C entered the heat room to deliver a message and the cauldron erupted, causing him injury
Judgment: Claim failed
L.P: • Not foreseeable, too remote.
• Magnitude of explosion was unforeseeable
Smith v Leech Brain
Facts: • C suffered an injury from splattering of molten metal
• the burn struck his lip and promoted cancer developing from which he subsequently died 3 years later
Judgment: Claim succeeded
L.P: •Risk of C being burnt was foreseeable as he hadn’t been given adequate protection
• D must take C as they doing them _>
•Eggshell skull rule: doesn’t matter if claimant is particularly sensitive
Intervening acts -
Home Office v Dorset Yacht co Ltd
Facts: • Borstal boys working on an island under supervision
• At night boys damaged D’s yacht
• C argued chain of causation was broken
Judgment: Appeal dismissed
L.P: • Did not break the chain of causation
• foreseeable that if they escaped -> damage would be caused because of their history
Intervening act main case-
Knightly v Johns
Facts: • A car crashed in a tunnel
• Police inspector forgot to close the tunnel
• Ordered C to ride down the tunnel against flow of traffic to close tunnel
• C was crashed into by a car
• C claimed damages against initial driver, police inspector, Chief constable and last driver
Judgment Police inspector and Chief constable liable
L.P: • Inspector broke the chain of causation from first driver “NOVAS ACTUS INTERVENUS”
• c could not be liable as he was ordered to do so
Robinson v Post Office
Facts: • C injured himself at work
• Doctor gave C an anti tetanus serum but didn’t follow proper procedure
• C developed a disease resulting in brain damage
•brought action against post office and doctor
Judgment: Only post office liable
L.P: • Doctor acted in accordance with a procedure accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men
• Post Office must “take victim as they found him”
McKew v Holland
Facts: • Steel fixer claimed damages from employer after being injured at work which the defendants conceded negligence
• C’s leg was weak as a result and when visiting houses he was descending some stairs and felt his leg go weak
• To avoid falling on his head C jumped to the next landing sustaining serious injury to his right leg
• C attainted that the injury to his right leg was directly attributable to the first incident
Judgment: Employers not liable
L.P: •C’s action broke the chain of causation to D
• Act of C was unreasonable
