Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Causation (Factual Causation ('But For' Test Applied in simple…

- - - - Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington [1969]
        
        Doctor negligently failed to examine a patient who later died of arsenic poisoning
        
        Victim would have died anyway if the Doctor wasn't negligent and so D was not liable
      - Wilsher v Essex [1988]
        
        Gave too much oxygen to an unborn child which led to blindness
        
        Court said other factors could have caused the blindness and so D was not responsible for the injury
      - Hotson v East Berkshire [1987]
        
        Boy fell out of tree and hospital failed to diagnose properly, leading to permanent hip damage
        
        75% chance that permanent damage would have been suffered so only 25% of damages paid
  - - - Some diseases can develop from one-off exposure, whilst others develop after long-time exposure
      - Can be difficult to prove factual causation, especially in employment context
      - Three different scenarios
        
        Innocent Exposure
        
        No-one is responsible for the exposure to chemicals, e.g. always be some fumes when working in a factory
        
        No claim for C as no-one is at fault
        
        Innocent and Guilty Exposure
        
        In most cases, C would fail as they can't prove the guilty exposure was the sole reason for the disease being contracted
        
        Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] carved out an exception
        
        Enough for C to show that D's negligence had materially contributed to the harm sustained
        
        But Holtby v Brigham & Cowan [2003] made changes to compensation in this exception
        
        D will only pay damages to the extent of their contribution to the disease
        
        Guilty Exposure
        
        Employer is liable for the injury sustained by the claimant
        
        Employer's negligence led to exposure to a toxic substance and C breathed in the substance, and this is the only cause of C's disease
    - - C may not be able to prove causation due to a lack of scientific understanding which could provide evidence
      - Cases
        
        Mghee v National Coal Board [1973]
        
        Employee contracted dermatitis from working in a brick kiln factory and employee gave no washing facilities for employees to wash hands
        
        Unsure how dermatitis was contracted from brick dust so court said it was enough to show that the 'guilty' dust had materially increased the risk of harm
        
        Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002]
        
        C worked for several employees and had been exposed to asbestos. Scientists knew asbestos was bad and caused diseases but didn't know how
        
        Court said it was enough to show that employer had materially increased the risk of harm to C
        
        Barker v Corus [2006]
        
        Cases involving being exposed to asbestos by 2 employers, but also asbestos in the enivronment
        
        Court asked 2 questions
        
        Should Fairchild Apply?
        
        Yes, but damages reduced by 20% to reflect self-exposure
        
        Should the solvent employer pay damages in full or only proportionate damages
        
        Court said employer only had to pay proportionate damages
        
        This led to issues and s3 Compensation Act 2006 meant 100% of damages could be claimed from solvent employer
- - - - Re Polemis [1921]: If D has caused a harm in fact and had a duty of care that they breached, D is liable for all consequences
      - The Wagon Mound [1961]: D is only responsible for the injuries reasonably foreseeable of his actions
        
        Reasonable Foreseeability
        
        Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]
        
        Court held leniently saying harm was foreseeable and thus D was liable
        
        D argued harm was not foreseeable and so could not be held liable for the injuries
        
        Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. [1964]
        
        Court upheld decision that D was not responsible
        
        D claimed the harm was not foreseeable as the harm was not from the chemicals, but rather an unforeseeable chemical reaction
        
        Tremain v Pike
        
        Worker sued a farmer after contracting Well's disease from an infestation of rats
        
        Court ruled that Well's disease was extremely rare and thus not reasonably foreseaable
        
        Page v Smith [1996]
        
        Car accident led to property damage but no personal injury, until a few hours after the accident when C started suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome
        
        HoL ruled that it didn't matter that the psychiatric damage wasn't foreseeable, as long as some personal damage was reasonably foreseeable
        
        Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000]
        
        Tenn working on a boat left by the council, when the car jack broke, leaving him paraplegic
        
        Council acknowledged negligence as to boys working on the boat, but argued damage was not foreseeable
        
        HoL held council liable as it was reasonably foreseeable that a child could sustain some form of injury from the boat
        
        Smith v Leech Brain & Co. [1962]
        
        V burnt lip due to D's negligence which led to a cancer outbreak due to pre-cancerous condition
        
        Court held D liable saying that the extent of the injury doesn't have to be foreseeable but some injury does
  - - - Council burst a water main which led to Lamb's house becoming flooded thus needing them to move out
      - Squatters moved into the house and caused more damage which C also claimed against the council for
      - CoA ruled that the chain of causation had been broken and council was liable for flooding damage but not for the squatter damage
    - - D1 negligently drove down motorway and jack-knifed his lorry
      - Rouse got out of his car to help with lorry injuries when D2 negligently crashed into the accident scene and killed Rouse
      - CoA held chain of causation was not broken so D1 was liable and had to pay 50% of damages
    - - D caused an accident at the end of a tunnel and Police sent an officer to the other end of the tunnel to close it down
      - Policeman injured by another driver whilst walking down the tunnel
      - CoA said that the officer being sent down the tunnel by his superior officer did break the chain of causation
    - - If v has an adverse reaction to medical treatment then D is liable and chain not broken
      - Webb v Barclays Bank [2001]
        
        C had Polio as a child and when they fell at work, the hospital said that the leg had to be amputated above the knee
        
        Consultant hadn't explored all the options and amputation wasn't actually necessary
        
        Barclays held liable and chain not broken as only gross negligence will be enough to break the chain of causation
    - - Suicide
        
        Corr v IBC [2008
        
        Corr suffered injury at work whereby he was nearly decapitated and was left with severe physical and psychological scars
        
        Committed suicide 6 years after the incident
        
        Court said that D was liable and suicide did not break the chain of causation, as long as the suicide is attributable to the psychological issues cause by the acident
      - Other Acts
        
        McKew v Holland [1969]
        
        As a result of D's negligence, C's leg would sometime give way, which it did after C had climbed to the top of some stairs
        
        C tried to jump down the stairs to reduce damage to himself, but ended up causing more injuries
        
        HoL said chain had been broken as the act of being at the top of the stairs had broken the chain of causation
        
        As a general rule, the more sever the act by the claimant, the more likely the chain is to be broken