Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Causation & Remoteness - Coggle Diagram

- - - - YES:
        
        When the defendant's act/omission caused the harm
        
        Evidence of factual causation which leads to a finding of legal causation
      - No:
        
        When the defendant's act/omission DID NOT caused the harm
        
        No evidence of factual causation, cannot proceed to legal causation
      - Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969):
        
        Facts: A night watchman arrived at the defendant's hospital complaining of nausea. The casualty doctor refused to examine the man and asked him to go home. The man died 5 hrs later of arsenic poisoning where his wife claimed the hospital liable
        
        Held: Court accepted that the defendants owed the deceased a DOC and that they breached that duty of failing to examine him. BUT, there was evidence that even if he's examined, he would have died anyway. Hence it could not be said that the but for the hospital's negligence he would not have died. Defendant not liable.
        
        Carter v Basildon & Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (2007):
        
        Facts: The deceased, aged 20 complained of headaches after a post-natal check. She was still nevertheless permitted to leave to hospital where the next day she died. Defendant admitted that he breached DOC by not admitting her for assessment. He also argued that nothing could have been done to prevent her death.
        
        Held: If the deceased had been admitted to the hospital she would have survived where heparin + other supportive would give her a good chance of survival. Failure to admit the patient caused her death. Hence, defendant is liable
        
        Swamy v Matthews & Anor (1968):
        
        Facts: Claimant was given an injection of substance by the defendant which caused paralysis of the hands and legs
        
        Held: HC dismissed claim as claimant failed to establish that the injection caused the paralysis. Federal Court upheld the HC on the grounds that the paralysis was not caused by the injection. Defendant not negligent.
    - - Chester v Afshar (2004):
        
        Facts: Claimant (Mrs. Chester) has been suffering from lower back pain for years, where a physician advised her to undergo surgery but did NOT mention the (1-2%) unavoidable risk of the operation however expertly the surgery may go. She fell under the risk and sued for negligence. Defendant argued that causation is proved when the claimant can show that she has been warned of the risk. But the claimant said that she would have sought further advice on what to do but no details given.
        
        Held: HoL held that a surgeon's DOC includes warning of risks. There had to be a remedy where a doctor failed to fulfill their duty, and a patient was injured as a result of that mistake . Hence HoL used the normal approach and defendant held liable
    - - Multiple causes
        
        When the injury/damage complained by the claimant is caused by the defendant's act combined with some other act/event
      - Material Contribution to harm
        
        Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw (1956):
        
        Facts: Claimant (Defendant's employee) contacted pneumoconiosis after inhaling silicon at work. Dust was from a machine that did not give any breach on the part of the defendant.
        
        Held: Defendant liable as the dust from the grinding machines is one of the causes of the disease. Claimant did not need to prove that the dust was the main cause of his illness. He only needed to prove that the dust from the grinding machine was a major cause of his disease which he did.
      - Material increase in risk
        
        McGhee v National Coal Board (1972):
        
        Facts: Claimant's job involved exposure to brick dust where he contracted dermatitis. It was known fact that brick dust can cause dermatitis. The workers also knew that exposure will cause dermatitis.
        
        Held: Defendant was not guilty for exposing the claimant to the dust, but he was liable for the prolonged exposure due to inadequate washing facilities at their factory. Claimant only had to show that the dust contributed to the breach of DOC that increased the risk of him contracting dermatitis
    - - Concurrent causes
        
        Where 2 or more defendants concurrently expose the claimant to the same risk
        
        Fitzgerald v Lane (1987):
        
        Facts: Claimant walked walked out onto busy road and was hit by a vehicle which pushed him into a path of another vehicle.
        
        Held: HoL held that claimant 50% to blame as both drivers equally to be blamed and should contribute equally the remaining 50%
      - Intervening Acts
        
        New act intervenes and breaks chain of causation, thus relieves the defendant of liability
        
        Intervening Act of 3rd party
        
        When the new act involves a 3rd party, the test is whether the act is foreseeable
        
        If IT IS foreseeable, defendant remains liable, chain of causation remains intact
        If it is NOT foreseeable, chain of causation is broken and defendant not liable for actions of 3rd party
        
        Lambden v Camden London Borough Council (1981):
        
        Facts: Defendant negligently broke a water pipe where the claimant's house suffered water damage and had to move out. When the claimant's moved out, squatters moved in and caused more damage
        
        Held: The squatters were not liable for further damage because it was not foreseeable
        
        Intervening Act of Claimant
        
        If the claimant's actions are unreasonable then that will be considered a new act, with a break in the chain of causation
        
        Mc Kew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd (1969):
        
        Facts: Man suffered an injury to his leg caused by negligence of his employer, where his leg would often give way and suddenly caused him to fall down. One day, his legs gave way and in order to avoid falling head first down the stairs, the man jumped and broke his ankle where he sued his employer
        
        Held: HoL held that by it was unreasonable of him to throw himself down the stairs where the employer could not have foreseen it, in which the chain of causation is broken
- - - - What must be reasonably foreseeable?:
        
        Must be of same class, kind or type that is foreseeable
        
        Whether the damage is of such kind as a reasonable man should have foreseen
      - What must be reasonably foreseeable?
        
        The type of damage
        
        Must be of same class, kind/type that is foreseeable
        
        Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967):
        
        Facts: Defendant exposed his employee to extreme cold in the course of his duties where claimant suffered frostbites. Cold and fatigue are likely to cause common cold and pneumonia.
        
        Held: Defendant held liable
        
        Tremain v Pike (1969):
        
        Facts: Claimant while working in a dairy farm got hands contaminated with rat's urine and became ill with Weil's disease
        
        Held: What is foreseeable is rat bites and food poisoning. Weil's disease is rare and not foreseeable by defendant = too remote
        
        The manner in which the harm occurred
        
        Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963):
        
        Facts: Post office employees working in a hole in the road negligently left a manhole uncovered inside a tent and left unattended. The 8 year-old claimant with a 10 year-old friend went exploring inside the tent where he fell inside the manhole igniting the paraffin vapour. There was a large explosion and the claimant was thrown into the hole and suffered serious burns
        
        Held: Per the HoL, the accident is caused by a known source of danger but caused in a way which was not foreseen. Defendant was held liable on the fault that burn injuries are foreseeable
        
        The Eggshell Skull Rule
        
        Where the defendant is in breach of DOC to the claimant
        
        It is foreseeable that the claimant will suffer some physical injury
        
        The particular claimant has a particular susceptibility/abnormality
        
        As a result suffers more serious injury/injury of a different type from that which is foreseen
        
        Defendant is liable for that further injury
        
        Brice v Brown (1984):
        
        Facts: Mrs. Brice was in a taxi which was in collision with a bus where she suffered a slight injury. Her daughter was seriously hurt and the claimant became mentally ill.
        
        Held: An ordinary person might have suffered psychiatric damage and hence a DOC is owed.