Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
Factual Causation - "But For Test"
But for D's breach of duty, would the harm to C have occurred? If yes, the claim will fail. If no, factual causation will be established.
Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority
Factual Causation - but for test - BoP
C fell out of tree and was treated negligently - 75% chance of condition happening without D's intervention. C must show on the balance of probabilities that the harm suffered was caused by D.
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw Ltd
Factual Causation - Material contribution D negligently exposed C to dust - led to disease
Where harm suffered by C has several causes, C only has to demonstrate that D's breach materially contributed to the harm. Doesn't have to prove on BoP that D was sole cause.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services
Factual Causation - Material increase in risk - Mesothelioma
In mesothelioma cases, the court will hold each employer in breach of duty liable for materially increasing the claimant's risk of harm. Because mesothelioma is an invisible injury, each D will be liable in full.
Sienkiewicz v Greif
Factual causation - material increase in risk approach limitation
Material increase in risk approach should be limited to cases of scientific uncertainty - mesothelioma being the only such case atm.
Holtby v Bringham and Cowan (Hull) Ltd
Factual Causation - Divisible injuries
If a court has evidence enabling it to divide injury suffered by C, it will apportion damages accordingly; asbestosis is a divisible injury.
Rahman v Aerose Ltd
Intervening acts by 3rd party
If a court has evidence enabling it to divide injury suffered by C, it will apportion damages accordingly; psychiatric injury is divisible. Medical negligence will rarely break the chain of causation unless grossly negligent - may break the chain.
Scott v Shephard
Acts of instinct will not break the chain of events.
Knightley v Johns
Blocked tunnel - police car driving against the traffic
The negligent intervention of a third pary will break the chain when it is unforeseeable.
Rouse v Squires
Multiple lorry crash
The negligent intervention of a third party will not break the chain when it is foreseeable.
Lamb v Camden London Borough Council
D negligently damaged C's house, while unoccupied, squatters damaged house
Reckless or intentional acts will break the chain if unforeseeable.
Stansbie v Troman
Decorator left house unlocked - thief stole diamond bracelet.
Reckless or intentional acts will not break the chain if foreseeable.
McKew v Holland
D's negligence had weakened C's leg - C descended stairs with no handrail and fell. D not liable as C unreasonable.
Acts by C will break chain of causation if entirely unreasonable.
Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd
C injured neck due to D negligence, C fitted with collar which made it difficult to wear glasses, consequently fell down stairs.
Intervening acts by C will not break the chain where they are reasonable.
Cork v Kirby
But for test
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
Acts of a third party - must be unforeseeable and unreasonable to break the chain of causation
Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd
Courts will take into account claimants trying to live their life post-injury when consideriong acts of the claimant with regards to causation.