Topic 3 - Causation

Question 2

What is the ‘but for’ test?

Answer 2

On the balance of probabilities, but for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the claimant have suffered their loss at that time and in that way?

This test is the starting point for establishing factual causation in tort law.

Question 3

What does it mean if factual causation is satisfied?

Answer 3

The claimant would not have suffered their loss were it not for the defendant’s breach.

Question 4

In the case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital, what was the outcome regarding factual causation?

Answer 4

Factual causation was not established because the claimant would have died even if he had been examined by the doctor.

Question 5

What must the claimant establish in terms of the standard of proof in civil actions?

Answer 5

The claimant must establish that it was more likely than not (more than a 50% chance) that the breach caused the loss.

Question 6

What is the significance of Chester v Afshar in relation to the ‘but for’ test?

Answer 6

The court relaxed the approach, allowing the claimant to prove causation if they would not have had the operation had they been warned of the risk.

Question 7

What is the material contribution test?

Answer 7

Applied when there is more than one cause of the claimant’s loss, and the causes were acting together to cause the loss.

Question 8

In Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw, why could the claimant not satisfy the ‘but for’ test?

Answer 8

The claimant could not prove that but for the defendant’s breach, he would not have suffered his disease at that time and in that way.

Question 9

What conclusion did the House of Lords reach in Bonnington regarding the defendant’s liability?

Answer 9

If the defendant’s breach could be proved to have materially contributed to the claimant developing the disease, the defendant would be liable for all the loss.

Question 10

What was the outcome in Bailey v Ministry of Defence regarding the material contribution test?

Answer 10

Factual causation was satisfied because the negligence materially contributed to the brain damage.

Question 11

What is the material increase in risk test?

Answer 11

A test applied when the claimant cannot satisfy the ‘but for’ test but can prove that the defendant’s breach materially increased the risk of injury.

Question 12

In McGhee v National Coal Board, why was the ‘but for’ test not satisfied?

Answer 12

The claimant could not prove on the balance of probabilities that the tortious dust caused dermatitis.

Question 13

What did the House of Lords rule in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd regarding the material increase in risk test?

Answer 13

The claimant succeeded by showing that the defendant had materially increased his risk of contracting mesothelioma.

Question 14

What is a key limitation of the material increase in risk test?

Answer 14

Currently confined to industrial disease cases where there is scientific uncertainty over cause.

Question 15

True or False: The material increase in risk test can be applied to cases with multiple causal agents.

Answer 15

False.

Question 16

Fill in the blank: The ‘but for’ test must be proved on the balance of _______.

Answer 16

probabilities.

Question 17

What is the significance of the Wilsher case in relation to causative factors?

Answer 17

The Wilsher case established that when there are multiple causal agents, the negligence cannot be said to have materially increased the risk of loss.

Question 18

In which types of cases is the test currently confined regarding causation?

Answer 18

Mesothelioma cases and lung cancer cases caused by asbestos.

Question 19

What was the outcome of the Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority case regarding the ‘loss of chance’ argument?

Answer 19

The House of Lords rejected the ‘loss of chance’ argument, stating that the child was most likely paralyzed due to the original fall.

Question 20

What is the ‘but for’ test in causation?

Answer 20

It determines whether the claimant would have suffered the loss but for the negligent act or omission.

Question 21

What is the material contribution test?

Answer 21

It assesses if the defendant’s breach materially contributed to the claimant’s injury in cases with cumulative causes.

Question 22

What was established in the case of McGhee v National Coal Board?

Answer 22

The increase in risk test was satisfied as one agent (dust) contributed to dermatitis.

Question 23

What does the Compensation Act 2006 state regarding mesothelioma cases?

Answer 23

Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the whole sum of damages, allowing them to recover contributions from each other.

Question 24

What principle is applied in multiple sufficient causes cases?

Answer 24

Determining whether the original tortfeasor is responsible for losses caused by subsequent events.

Question 25

What was held in the Performance Cars v Abraham case?

Answer 25

The second defendant was not liable if they did not cause any additional damage.

Question 26

What is the legal definition of 'novus actus interveniens'?

Answer 26

An intervening act that can break the chain of causation between the breach and the damage.

Question 27

What type of natural events can break the chain of causation?

Answer 27

Exceptional natural events, such as storms or floods, can break the chain of causation.

Question 28

What was the outcome of Knightley v Johns regarding acts of third parties?

Answer 28

The court held that the police inspector's actions broke the chain of causation due to their unforeseeability.

Question 29

Under what circumstances do medical treatments break the chain of causation?

Answer 29

Medical treatments do not break the chain unless they are so grossly negligent as to be unforeseeable.

Question 30

What was established in the Wright v Cambridge Medical Group case?

Answer 30

The defendant GP was liable for the full extent of the claimant’s loss, despite third-party negligence.

Question 31

What is the legal test for determining if a claimant's actions break the chain of causation?

Answer 31

The claimant's actions must be highly unreasonable.

Question 32

What was the ruling in McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts regarding unreasonable actions?

Answer 32

The claimant's unreasonable actions did break the chain of causation.

Question 33

What happens in cases of contributory negligence?

Answer 33

The defendant remains liable, but the claimant's damages are reduced according to their contribution to the loss.

Question 34

What is the legal principle regarding the claimant's actions in relation to their loss?

Answer 34

The defendant is still liable for the claimant's loss, but the claimant's damages are reduced to reflect their contribution to the loss. ## Footnote This principle acknowledges the role of the claimant's own actions in causing or exacerbating their damages.

Question 35

What was the outcome of McKew v Holland & Hanmen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd?

Answer 35

The claimant acted unreasonably and broke the chain of causation between the breach and broken ankle. ## Footnote The claimant's descent down a steep staircase without a handrail despite impaired mobility led to the injury.

Question 36

What did the court hold in Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd regarding the claimant's actions?

Answer 36

The claimant acted carefully, and her actions did not break the chain of causation. ## Footnote The claimant had assistance while descending the stairs, which supported her claim.

Question 37

What is the effect of a novus actus interveniens?

Answer 37

It breaks the chain of causation. ## Footnote The defendant remains responsible for any loss incurred before the novus actus event.

Question 38

In the context of negligence, what does 'breaking the chain of causation' mean?

Answer 38

It refers to the situation where the claimant's actions or an intervening event sever the link between the defendant's breach and the claimant's injury.