Causation (Negligence)

Question 1

Causation is only established once all 3 of these elements are satisfied

Answer 1

Factual Causation
Intervening Act
Legal Causation (Remoteness)

Question 2

Main test for factual causation

Answer 2

‘But for’ test

Question 3

‘But for’ test

Answer 3

Barnett

Question 4

Factual causation is established if

Answer 4

‘but for the defendant’s breach, the claimant would not have sustained the harm’

Question 5

Bonnington Castings

Answer 5

If multiple causes have contributed to harm, D’s breach must have materially contributed to harm to amount to factual causation

Question 6

Where C’s harm has more than one cause:

If harm is divisible, court will apportion damages accordingly

Answer 6

Holtby v Brigham

Question 7

Where C’s harm has more than one cause:
If harm is indivisible, C may sue any one D for whole loss
(D may seek a just and equitable contribution from other liable parties)

Answer 7

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Question 8

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services

Mesothelioma Case

Answer 8

If more than one employer is being sued, responsibility of each employer need not be categorically proven

Question 9

Causation can only be established if chain of causation…

Answer 9

… has not been broken by an intervening event

Question 10

Intervening acts by third party:

Negligent acts only break chain if unforeseeable

Answer 10

Knightley v Johns

Question 11

Intervening acts by third party:

Reckless or intentional acts are more likely to break chain of causation (unless foreseeable)

Answer 11

Lamb v Camden

Question 12

Intervening acts by third party:

Instinctive/natural response acts will not break chain of causation

Answer 12

Scott v Shepherd

Question 13

Intervening acts by third party:

Negligent medical treatment will not usually break chain of causation

Answer 13

Rahman v Arearose

Question 14

Intervening acts by third party:

Intervening acts by the claimant will only break chain of causation if entirely unreasonable in circumstances

Answer 14

McKew v Holland

Question 15

Remoteness Rule (Wagon Mound)

Answer 15

D is only liable for reasonably foreseeable damage.

Could reasonable person have foreseen it?

Question 16

For remoteness, not necessary to foresee precise way in which harm is caused, provided type of harm is reasonably foreseeable

Answer 16

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Question 17

Eggshell Skull Rule

Take your victim as you find them

Answer 17

Robinson v Post Office