Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Torts: Legal Causation & Remoteness (Remoteness (Tests (Reasonable…

- - - - Events involving human agency
        
        fairness?
        
        “reckless”, “wholly unreasonable”, “highly culpable”, or deliberate
        
        Acts/omissions by third parties
        We don’t have devices like mitigation or contributory negligence to help adjust causation in cases of third parties -> so courts make more use of duty and breach of duty. Generally, people don’t owe duty to control the actions of third parties.
        
        Gross negligence by 3P: wanton interference or natural/probable consequence?
        
        vehicle driven negligently by defendant overturned near exit of one-way tunnel. Police inspector on scene ordered the plaintiff and another officer on motorcycles to ride back against traffic and close the entrance. Car crash.
        
        a negligent defendant whose situation invites rescue is liable for the natural and probable consequences (reasonable foreseeability) of their negligence, including the act of rescue
        
        “wanton inference” or wanton disregard of the rescuer’s own safety will sever the causal connection (ppt)
        HELD: NAI
        (Knightley v Johns [1982] UKCA)
        
        Foreseeability
        
        natural course of things?
        
        So too, an act by the rescuer that is “grossly foolish and disproportionate to the danger” (Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another v Socomec SA [2012] 2 SLR 1057 at [72]-[73]). (ppt)
        
        Creation of dangerous situation (inviting rescue)
        
        a defendant who negligently causes a motor accident may also be liable to a person who, while stopping to assist at the scene, is harmed by another negligent motorist
        
        subsequent negligence by other motorist not amounting to deliberate or reckless act not NAI (ppt)
        HELD: no NAI
        (Rouse v Squires [1973], Rouse deceased)
        
        Causation will not be broken if 3P's acts are reasonable
        
        notwithstanding lack of foreseeability
        The Oropesa
        
        Criminal or intentionally wrongful conduct: very likely?
        
        very likely to happen a result of breach of duty
        
        "glaringly obvious" or "manifest and obvious" risk
        HELD: not NAI despite deliberate and intentional act
        (Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970])
        
        3P conduct unreasonable/too remote/policy reasons (Lamb v Camden LBC [1981] UKCA)
        
        criticised "very likely test" (contrary to Wagon Mound No 2, etc)
        
        FACTS: LBC negligently fixes sewers, flooding leading to cracking in foundation of house; squatters also caused damage to house
        
        claimed for damage caused by squatters as well HELD: no
        Muddling of legal causation and remoteness
        
        Clear foreseeable risk + encouragement of 3P to act dangerously
        
        reckless conduct
        HELD: no NAI
        (Weirum v RKO General Inc US, radio car crash case)
        
        Control of risk
        (Satcher v James H Drew Shows Inc US, mental patients bumper car case)
        
        Subsequent negligent medical treatment is NAI when “inexcusably bad” or “completely outside the bounds of what any reputable practitioner might prescribe”
        
        otherwise only concurrent cause
        (Mahony v J Kruschich (Demolitions) Pte Ltd (1985))
        
        Acts/omissions by plaintiff
        
        Mental state of plaintiff caused by defendant's breach
        
        Defendant's breach resulted in depression and suicide
        
        "Mr Corr’s suicide was not a voluntary, informed decision taken by him as an adult of sound mind making and giving effect to a personal decision about his future. It was the response of a man suffering from a severely depressive illness which impaired his capacity to make reasoned and informed judgments about his future, such illness being, as is accepted, a consequence of the employer’s tort
        
        does not have to be "insane"
        
        head injuries caused by D, resulted in PTSD, severe depression and suicidal tendencies; suicide in the end
        HELD: not NAI, not unfair
        (Corr v IBC Vehicles [2008] UKHL, Lord Bingham)
        
        Personality change resulting in increased criminal tendencies
        
        moderate criminal tendencies -> brain damage due to D's negligence -> marked personality change -> serious crimes (sexual assault and violence) -> conviction and life imprisonment
        
        HELD: not NAI, D's breach a cause of loss of liberty
        (Meah v McCreamer [1985])
        
        Negation of causation by policy reasons: ex turpi causa
        
        train crash leading to PTSD, P stabs someone to death; charged manslaughter due to defense of diminished responsibility; sent to mental institution
        HELD: no NAI, could show causation, but ex turpi causa
        
        -> applied causation at two levels: defendant's negligence (cause 1), plaintiff's own act (cause 2); used cause 1 to find no NAI, prima facie case, but used cause 2 to find illegality based on public policy
        (Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009])
        
        Defence: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (Latin "from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise") is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal remedy if it arises in connection with his own illegal act.
        (broad version): damage in consequence of P's own criminal act is not recoverable
        (narrow version): damage which is the consequence of a sentence imposed for P's criminal act is not recoverable
        
        Emergencies
        
        Inconvenient urgent situation - reasonableness and proportionality of response
        
        risk was not disproportionate to necessities of situation
        
        escape attempt from locked toilet was "natural, reasonable, prudent or foreseeable in the circumstances" (Gary Chan)
        (Sayers v Harlow DC [1958] UKCA)
        
        Reasonable act (by 3P) in emergency situation
        
        some latitude given; even if there was subsequent error in judgment by P, if mistake was natural consequence then not NAI
        
        "To break the chain of causation it must be shown that there is something which I will call ultroneous, something unwarrantable, a new cause which disturbs the sequence of events, something which can be described as either unreasonable or extraneous or extrinsic"
        
        whether there was new cause, not new negligence
        (The Oropesa [1943])
        
        Exacerbating act or extreme reaction by plaintiff
        
        Wholly unreasonable + wholly independent cause of damage
        
        failure to seek medical aid not ^above
        HELD: no NAI
        (TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi [2004] SGCA)
        
        Reckless + deliberate
        
        "the courts should not be eager to find that a claimant had acted so unreasonably as to break the chain of causation... high degree of culpability so as to warrant a finding... acted recklessly and or deliberately and thereby broken the chain of causation"
        
        "more readily with personal injury and physical damage claims, rather than... economic loss"
        (PlanAssure PAC v Gaelic Inns Pte Ltd [2007] SGCA)
        
        Applying TV Media and PlanAssure; foolish and unwise behaviour not NAI
        P's act "while clearly foolish and unwise, did not amount to conduct so reckless or wholly unreasonable such that it broke the chain of causation"
        HELD: no NAI
        (MCST NO 2668 v Rott George Hugo [2013] SGHC)
        
        "Unreasonable": embarking on conduct despite knowledge of risk
        
        unreliable knee previously injured by D, descended staircase, knee buckled, jumped rest of 10 steps and was injured, HELD: further injuries not caused
        (McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969]
        
        Suicide: breach of specific duty to guard against very act/risk that materialises
        
        "a deliberate and informed act intended to exploit a situation created by a defendant did not negative causation where the defendant was in breach of a specific duty imposed by law to guard against that very act"
        
        HELD: no NAI, found P contributory negligence
        (Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] UKHL)
      - Natural phenomenon
        (usually dealt with at standard of care & breach)
  - - - D1 liable if continuing cause of damage; D2 is tortious
        
        D1 injured P's leg; D2 (armed robber) shot and resulted in P's leg being amputated, encompassing and increasing original injury
        
        treated D2 as concurrent cause of damage
        HELD: D1 liable
        (Baker v Willoughby [1970]
        
        Criticisms
        (1) effects of D1 ceased with amputation
        (2) "vicissitudes of life" argument
        (Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982])
        
        Limitations in SG: personal injury vs commercial disputes
        
        should not be applied to commercial disputes; leaves question open to whether applicable for personal-injury claims
        (Salcon Ltd v United Cement Pte Ltd [2004])
      - D2 not liable for costs of rectifying existing damage
        
        D1 negligently damages P's car, needs respraying; D2 negligently collides with car, also requires respraying.
        
        consistent with egg-shell-skull rule
        (Performance Cars v Abraham [1962])
    - - D1's liability ceases at occurrence of natural (non-tortious) E2 which wipes out physical effects of first tort
        
        D1 injured P decreasing earning capacity by 50%; E2 (myelopathy) reduced earning capacity to zero
        
        damages limited by supervening condition would have occurred naturally as part of the "vicissitudes of life"
        (Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982])
      - Preference in SG for Jobling approach
        E1 structural problems with silo; E2 overloaded silo and it collapsed
        HELD: NAI
        (Salcon Ltd v United Cement Pte Ltd [2004], obiter)
- - - - Reasonable foreseeability (real risk which is not far-fetched) of the type of loss which actually occurred; precise extent of loss need not be foreseeable
        
        negligent discharge of oil by D; P conducting welding operations in wharf, ignited oil and caused fire
        HELD: not reasonably foreseeable that damage by fire would occur (type of damage)
        (P: owner of dock; D: ship which discharged oil) (concerns of contributory negligence which was a complete defence)
        (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No 1) [1961] PC)
      - Real risk which a reasonable man would not think far-fetched
        
        was damage by fire reasonably foreseeable even though the possibility was small? easy to eliminate?
        
        sufficient to foresee type of damage not precise sequence of events or extent of damage
        HELD: yes reasonably foreseeable
        (P: owner of ship in dock; D: ship which discharged oil) (no worries of CN)
        (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) [1986] PC)
      - Reasonable foreseeability appears at:
        Duty -> abstraction in the form of classes of plaintiffs who might be harmed; anticipatory analysis; balanced with other factors
        Standard of care/breach -> abstraction in the form of the variety of risks which might harm the plaintiff, which the defendant confronts and controls; multifactorial analysis about potentialities
        Remoteness/damage -> what kind of loss did the plaintiff actually suffer and was it reasonably foreseeable? Works on its own, primary concern, subject to a few tweaks.
        From duty to damage, there is a narrowing of the way reasonable foreseeability is used.
  - - - Type and manner of damage defined with more specificity
        
        general type of damage (burning) foreseeable, but type of damage was defined more specifically, i.e. damage by splashing molten metal is different from damage by chemical explosion
        (Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [1964] distinguished from Hughes v Lord Advocate)
      - Rare diseases v common diseases
        
        rare condition caused by contact with rat urine held to be different type of damage than common diseases caused by rat bites and food contamination by rats
        
        contradicts "type of damage" and "manner of injury" principles, too specific?
        (Tremain v Pike)
    - - General type of injury foreseen; extent and precise manner of injury need not be foreseeable
        
        manhole, paraffin lamps, allurement, children went to play, got burnt -> type of damage (burning) was foreseeable
        (Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963])
        
        Extent of actual damage may be larger than foreseeable
        
        large explosion caused by chemical reaction in glass ampoules with water; only small explosion reasonably foreseeable but
        HELD: liable
        (Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals Ltd [1971])
        
        Precise manner of injury occuring does not need to be foreseen as long as cause was a "known source of danger"
        
        foreseeable that minors might be attracted to the boat and “meddle with” it, exposing them to the risk of physical injury
        
        no evidence that foreseeable risk of harm was the one that materialised (caused the boat to topple over)
        
        FACTS: teenaged boys went to fix rotten boat, P got crushed when it toppled over
        (Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000])
- - - - If reasonably foreseeable that plaintiff would suffer psychiatric harm, recoverable regardless of extent of harm
        
        pre-existing personality disorder -> minor accident with superficially nasty injuries -> attempted suicides
        (Brice v Brown [1984])
    - - Medical treatment reasonably foreseeable, takes risk of adverse reaction
        
        injured shin, anit-tetanus injection, allergic reaction resulting in brain damage and partial disability
        HELD: reasonably foreseeable
        (Robinson v Post Office [1974])
      - Actual knowledge of specific kind of loss not required for foreseeability test; constructive knowledge of loss sufficient
        
        one medical problem can cause another medical problem (brain + leg amputation -> less mobility -> diabetes) whether successive medical problems are reasonably foreseeable
        HELD: reasonably foreseeable
        (Tan Juay Mui v Sher Kuan Hock [2012] SGHC)
      - Only type of damage need be foreseeable not actual extent of damage
        
        P struck on lip by molten piece of metal; developed cancer due to pre-malignant condition of lip cells; died
        
        Question: whether burn was foreseeable (not cancer!)
        HELD: reasonably foreseeable
        (Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962])