Causation (Intervening acts (Negligent acts of third parties (, Wright V…
Negligent acts of third parties
Wright V Lodge
Rouse V Squires
Intervening act of claimant
reeves V Commissioner of Police for the metropolis.
Kirkham V Chief Constable of Manchester Police (1990)
Corr V IBC Vehicles (2008)
Wieland V Cyrill Lord Carpets (1969)
McKew V Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (1969)
Knightley V Johns (1982)
Deliberate wrongful act
Multiple sufficient sources
Jobling V Associated Dairies Ltd (1982) Non tortious intervening event
Performance cars V Abraham
Baker V Willoughby (1970)
But for test - Barnet V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
Material contribution to harm
Bonnington Castings V Wardlaw - Pneumonoconiosis as a result of inhaling silicone dust.
Material contribution to risk
Wilsher V Essex
Compensation Act 2006
Barker V Chorus (2006)
Attribution of liability on a time-apportionment basis to 'smooth the roughness of justice that joint and several liability creates.
Fairchild V Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (2003)
Lord Bingham - Had there been only one torfeasor he would have been able to recover, but because the duty is broken by two tortfeasors he is not able to recover against neither because he cannot show what is scientifically impossible.
MeGhee V National Coal Board (1973) Brick dust
Challenges to but for test
Loss of chance
Allied Maples V Simmons & Simmons (1995) Loss of chance in economic losses.
Gregg V Scott (2005) Loss of chance of living a further 10 years.
Lady Hale - coin toss example. If the law were to recognise a loss of chance for a specific outcome then there would be problems with apportioning damages. Also, it would lead to complex expert evidence as well as difficulties in negotiations. Further it's a two edged sword in that a claimant who would otherwise be entitled to full recover would only partially recover while a defendant would always be liable to one extent or another. Much uncertainty would be caused in the law.
The recognition of possible rather than probable causation would be too radical a change to our law as to amount to a legislatvie act. Lord Hoffmann
Hotson V East Berkshire HA (1987) 25% chance - necrocis