Causation (Multiple sufficient causes (Intervening Events (Intervening…
Multiple sufficient causes
Baker V Willoughby
Jobling V Associated Dairies
Intervening events by the claimants
McKew V Holland
Wieland V Cyril Carpets
Corrs V IBC Vehicles, Reeves, Kirkham
Knightley V Johns - Not a concurrent cause of the damage, but a separate cause which was intervening.
Spence V Wincanton
Intervening acts by third parties
Rouse V Spiers
Wright V Lodge (1993)
Intervening criminal conduct
Smith V Littlewoods
Lamb V Camden, Perl V Camden
But for test Barnett V Chelsea & KEnsington
Challenges to but for
Loss of chance
Hotby V ...... Necrocis (25% loss of chance for desirable outcome)
Gregg V Scott - Coin toss (Lady Hale). To extend the law to such a degree would be such a radical decision as to amount to a legislative act.
Lord Nicholls discenting ....argued that a 42 % chance cannot recover while 50% would on the balance of probability succeed?
Allied Maples V Simmonds & Simmonds
Material contribution to harm (cumulative)
McGhee V National Coal Board
Fairchild v Glenhaven
Barker V Corus UK Ltd - Case involving partly self employed harm. Apportioned damages on a time-basis.
Wilsher V Essex - No material contribution where there are numerous possible causes of the harm.
Material contribution to risk (where it is unknown whether the harm is cumulative (e.g. a single event as in asbestos exposure)
Apportionment - divisible V indivisible damage
Fairchild it was simply not raised
Rahman V Arearose, Hutton V Sutherland for psychiatric injury was held that it was divisible.
Lord Nicholls disagreed in Barker V Corus (was the defendant half mad because of the negligence of the employer and half mad because of the negligent medical treatment.
Bailey V Ministry of Defense
Emergency situations - the Ogopogo, the Oropesa
Doubt as to what D's acts would have been in the performance of their duty - Bolitho - intubation
Doubt as to the claimants actions had the defendant done what they should have - Mc Williams V Sir WIlliam Arrol (1962)
Failure to warn of risks may controversially be the cause of the damage - Chester V Afshar