Lecture notes
Unit 2 - Causation + Defences
Notes for unit 2 of the University of Law's PgDL Conversion Course. This unit covers causation and defences to the tort of negligence.
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
Seller
Follow
Content preview
TORT LAW2 – Negligence (Causation & Defences)
Tort c3
Causation of Damage
Causation in Fact
Claimants must satisfy judge that:
1. They would not had been harmed had defendant not been negligent
o ‘but for’ test; Barnett
o ‘all or nothing’ approach; Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority
o multiple causes: material contribution approach (Bonnington) or material increase in risk (McGhee)
2. No significant intervening event broke chain of causation between defendant breach & claimant suffering
harm; Rouse (third party acts) Wieland (claimant acts)
o intervening acts (NAI test; Novus Actus Interveniens)
3. The kind of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable; Wagon Mound No 1 (remoteness in damage)
o ‘similar in type’ rule
o ‘eggshell skull’ rule
The burden for proving causation lies on the claimant
But burden for proving any defence lies on the defendant
- balance of probability
Relevant evidence:
- witness evidence
- criminal convictions
- expert evidence
- documentary evidence
‘But for’ test
But for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the harm to the claimant have occurred?
- was the negligence a cause of the damage
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]; man felt ill early in morning; called
casualty department of local hospital; doctor did not examine; told to see his own doctor; died of arsenic
poisoning later that day
- medical evidence: would’ve died even if seen that morning; arsenic poisoning too far advanced
- hospital had breached duty of care, but breach not cause of death; not liable
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol [1962]; defendant employees obliged to provide safety harnesses to employees
but didn’t; McWilliams fell to his death; had history of not wearing harness even when supplied
- employers successfully argued McWilliams wouldn’t have worn harness even if provided; would’ve died
anyway; breach not cause of death
‘All or nothing’ approach
To establish causation, must show on the balance of probabilities that harm suffered was caused by defendant
- ‘more likely than not’
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] – claimant fell from tree and injured, then treated
negligently by client – 75% likelihood medical condition would’ve been same irrespective of diagnosis/treatment
- failed to satisfy causation test; 25% < 50%!
, TORT LAW
2 – Negligence (Causation & Defences)
Tort c3
Much more difficult with several possible alternative causes of claimant’s injury:
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988]; claimant born prematurely; put in special baby care unit at
hospital; catheter wrongly inserted; baby oversaturated with oxygen; developed condition resulting in blindness
- likely cause was administered too much oxygen; but 5 possible alternative causes! (only one due to
defendant’s breach)
- House of Lords: burden falls on claimant to prove defendant’s breach of duty cause the harm on the
balance of probabilities – not liable
Gregg v Scott [2005]; more recent confirmation of Hotson; claims for loss of chance <50% are not going to
succeed in personal injury actions; but often successful in cases of pure economic loss!
Somewhat contradicted by:
Chester v Afshar [2002]; claimant needed spine operation; asked about risks but claimant failed to warn of very
small risk of serious injury; operation carried out carefully but serious injury still occurred
- surgeon clearly breached duty of care to advise of risks; but had his breach caused the harm?
- claimant admitted would’ve still probs gone for operation with warning; but court decided failure to warn
caused harm
- illogical! definitely not balance of probabilities!
- hard to reconcile with Wilsher & Hotson
Material contribution approach
In a multiple cause case the claimant need not show that defendant breach of duty was only/main cause of
damage – just that materially contributed;
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956]; claimant employed for 8 years in shop; got pneumoconiosis by
inhaling air contaminated with noxious dust particles; two causes of noxious dust; ‘guilty dust’ (from machinery
improperly maintained by defendant; breach of duty) and ‘innocent dust’ (alternate source; not in breach)
- House of Lords: claimant succeeded in establishing causation as could show the defendant’s breach of duty
created the ‘guilty dust’ which materially contributed to the harm he suffered
(Not applied in Wilsher; negligence could not be shown to have made material contribution to claimant’s harm)
Material increase in risk?
Exception to material contribution approach; material increase in risk of injury (rather than injury itself)
- now strictly confined to cases of scientific uncertainty
o e.g. mesothelioma – may be only case currently recognised
McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] – claimant not able to prove ‘guilty dust’ connected to defendant’s breach
by failing to provide washing facilities contributed to his dermatitis
- House of Lords: claimant still succeeded; defendant breach had materially increased risk of dermatitis
- appeared to extend material contribution approach to principle of material increase in risk
Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] – casts doubt on any extension!
- SC: found defendant liable based on material increase in risk approach
o However: judgements in case suggested principle of material increase in risk is now strictly limited
to cases of scientific uncertainty
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller chiaraparisotti. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.39. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
52510 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now