Negligence Causation and remoteness of damage

Question 1

Causation in fact - But for test

Answer 1

But for x the harm would not have happened

Question 2

Causation and But for test

Answer 2

The claimant is required to prove on the balance of probability that the defendants breach caused the damage Anything that is more probable than not it treats as certain

Question 3

Multiple Causes

Answer 3

where there are multiple causes/exposures claimant is put to proof that the negligence materially contributed to the risk (Material increase in risk)

Question 4

Exception to Material increase

Answer 4

Mesothelioma -claimant can recover from any one defendant that caused exposure negligently

Question 5

Loss of chance

Answer 5

The mere exposure to a risk of future harm is not a sufficient cause of action in English law

Question 6

Loss of chance economic loss

Answer 6

Courts are more willing to accept claims for loss of chance if the loss is economic

Question 7

Multiple successive causes Property damage

Answer 7

Where the causes are successive and the breach by the second defendant causes the same type of damage as the first the but for test will be applied to the second defendant

Question 8

Multiple successive causes Personal Injury- second defendant

Answer 8

As second defendant is not absolved of responsibility however damages may be split if it is proved that the second act did not break the chain of causation

Question 9

Multiple successive causes Personal Injury- first defendant

Answer 9

The supervening event has not made the claimant less injured- but more therefore should not receive less damages

Question 10

Multiple successive causes 2nd issue not tortious Personal Injury- first defendant

Answer 10

Damages will be limited to the period of time that the negligence caused the damage not for successive losses as a result of the non tortious issue

Question 11

Apportionment

Answer 11

Recognised that every tortfeasor should compensate the claimant in respect of that loss and damage for which he should be JUSTLY be held RESPONSIBLE

Question 12

Causation in law

Answer 12

Was the defendants breach the sort of “but for” cause to justify liablity - Novus Actus intervenins / damages too remote

Question 13

Novus actus interveniens

Answer 13

The defendants breach may satisfy the but for test however an separate and unconnected act caused the damages sort - if the act was something that was likely to happen no intervening act

Question 14

Novus actus interveniens types

Answer 14

1 Natural event
2 Non deliberate act by a third party
3 Deliberate act by a third party
4 Act of the claimant themselves

Question 15

Natural event

Answer 15

Courts reluctant to find that an intervening natural event breaks the chain of causation

Question 16

Natural event - breaks chain example

Answer 16

If a claimant is injured due to negligence but the ambulance taking the D to hospital is struck by a falling tree causation is broken

Question 17

Natural event - does not breaks chain example

Answer 17

Defendant negligently starts a fire and strong winds cause fire to spread damaging other property -causation chain not broken - damages stem for single incident

Question 18

Non deliberate act of third party

Answer 18

2 Hurdles
1 Was the whole sequence of events a natural and probable consequence of the defendants negligence and the consequence was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant and not just a possibility
2 Could the action of the intervening person be catagorised as legally negligent - negligent conduct is more likely to break the chain of causation.

Question 19

Deliberate act of third party

Answer 19

Liability in negligence for harm can only arise in three circumstances

1) Special relationship between the C & D
2) D caused the source of the damage and foreseeable that a third party would extend the risk
3) D knew or ought to know that a third party is creating a danger and fails to take reasonable steps

Question 20

Where there is no specific duty to guard

Answer 20

The third party act must be independent of the breach
The Where there is no specific duty to guard
Where the third party act is foreseeable causation is not broken

Question 21

Act by the claimant themselves

Answer 21

normally classed as contributory negligence however there are circumstances where the claimants conduct can break the chain - the test is reasonableness of their action If action reasonable - No break if not reasonable contrib if as a result of first incident - Break if second unconnected incident

Question 22

Act by the claimant themselves Contrib neg

Answer 22

The act of the claimant can be caused contrib neg instead of a break in causation Law reform act (Contrib neg) 1945

Question 23

Remoteness of damage history

Answer 23

Started as direct consequence test - once the act is negligent the fact that the damages exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial developed into reasonable foreseeability test

Question 24

direct consequence test

Answer 24

once the act is negligent the fact that the damages exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial - now limited to torts such as trespass/deceit

Question 25

reasonable foreseeability test

Answer 25

is the type of damage suffered a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty

Question 26

Reasonably foreseeable in a unforeseeable way

Answer 26

In order to establish a coherent chain of causation it is not necessary for the precise details to be foreseeable just that the type of accident is reasonably foreseeable

Question 27

Extent of harm suffered

Answer 27

Providing that the kind of damage is foreseeable it does not matter that it is more extensive then could have been foreseen

Question 28

Thin skull rule

Answer 28

Taking your victim as you find them