Causation

But for test Barnett V Chelsea & KEnsington

Challenges to but for

Loss of chance

Hotby V ...... Necrocis (25% loss of chance for desirable outcome)

Material contribution to harm (cumulative)

Material contribution to risk (where it is unknown whether the harm is cumulative (e.g. a single event as in asbestos exposure)

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?

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.

Apportionment - divisible V indivisible damage

Fairchild it was simply not raised

click to edit

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

Multiple sufficient causes

Baker V Willoughby

Jobling V Associated Dairies

Intervening Events

Intervening events by the claimants

McKew V Holland

Wieland V Cyril Carpets

Suicide cases

Corrs V IBC Vehicles, Reeves, Kirkham

Intervening acts by third parties

Rouse V Spiers

Wright V Lodge (1993)

Wilsher V Essex - No material contribution where there are numerous possible causes of the harm.

Knightley V Johns - Not a concurrent cause of the damage, but a separate cause which was intervening.

Spence V Wincanton

Remoteness

Wagon Mound

Allied Maples V Simmonds & Simmonds

Intervening criminal conduct

Smith V Littlewoods

Lamb V Camden, Perl V Camden

Considerations

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