Causation

Question 1

What is causation?

Answer 1

• the factual link between the defendants actions and the claimants harm.
  -Usually established through the “but-for test” - But for the defendants actions, would the harm have happened?

Question 2

What is remoteness?

Answer 2

Was the harm too far fetched to be established by the defendant?

• Even if harm was caused, it must have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence.
• This limits the defendant’s liability to what they could realistically anticipate.

Question 3

What case established the but for test?

Answer 3

Chelsea hospital.

principle: “But for” test for factual causationFacts: A man was sent home from hospital and later died of arsenic poisoning.

Held: Even if the hospital had treated him, he still would have died. No causation = no liability.

Question 4

what case covers the material risk of harm in industrial disease cases?

Answer 4

McGhee

principle: Material increase in risk (industrial disease cases)

Facts: C developed dermatitis after being exposed to brick dust with no washing facilities.

Held: breach materially increased the risk of harm.Enough to establish causation in disease cases.

Question 5

what case establishes fact that harm must be foreseeable?

Answer 5

The wagon Mound

principle: Remoteness damage must be reasonably foreseeable
Facts: Oil spill caused fire damage to a wharf.
Held: Fire damage not foreseeable from oil spill. D not liable for unforeseeable type of damage