Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Torts - Coggle Diagram
Torts
Causation
Single potential cause (
factual causation
)
but for test
reiterated in
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Meng Eric (2007)
[64] "If the loss would not have occurred when the act or omission is eliminated, the act or omission is a condicio sine qua non for the loss. If the loss would still have occurred, even when the act or omission in question is disregarded, the loss has not been caused by this act or omission."
applied to
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]
facts
Deceased drank tea poisoned with arsenic, had persistent vomiting. Went to the Hospital at about 8 am. Doctor told the nurse to tell him to go home and consult own doctors at 10am. By 2 pm, the deceased had died from arsenic poisoning.
holding/reasoning
Hospital was negligent as their doctor did not examine the patient nor treat him. However, even without negligence, treatment would not have been administered before the death. Arsenic consumed at 7am, would be too late by 9am. Doctor’s “duty of care” was to diagnose correctly at 10am. So even if doctor fulfilled his duty, he would not be able to save him. Damage would have occurred even without negligence.
Multiple potential
sequential
causes (
legal causation
)
Determining the presence of a novus actus interveniens:
break in the chain of causation’ - there is intervening event which seems of far greater significance in explaining injury than defendant’s negligence
When an NAI is found, the defendant is no longer liable for any loss to claimant.
Successive tortious event which cause the same damage
Baker v Willougby
Facts:
PF's left leg was injured due to DF's negligence. Before trial, PF’s leg shot in an armed robbery and had to be amputated
Holding:
Defendant liable for losses caused even after the robbery. Damages were not compensation for the physical injury but for the loss suffered by reason of that injury. These losses not diminished by the second injury, would continue as long even if the second injury had not occurred. Difficulties from having a peg leg similar to having a stiff leg
I.e. the second tortious event did not function as an NAI as regardless of whether the second event occurred, the damages to the plaintiff are the same
Successive (1) non tortious event which (2)
did not cause the same damage
Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd
Facts:
PF suffered permanent back injury as a result of DF's negligence. 3 years later, but before trial, PF diagnosed with myelopathy, rendered him unfit for work.
Holding:
Myelopathy was one of the "vicissitudes of life" which the courts would take into account in assessing damages. DF not liable for losses after onset of condition.
The defendant also suffered additional damages caused by the supervening illness.
note that the myelopathy did not function as an NAI, the DF was still liable for losses before the onset of condition
Successive tortious event which caused greater damage in a commercial dispute case
Salcon Ltd v United Cement Pte Ltd
Facts:
D negligently designed and constructed a silo. After defects discovered, the silo was shut down for repairs with restriction that it should not be run beyond 70% capacity. The repair company tested the silo by running one of the cells at 100%. It cracked and the silo collapsed.
Holding:
Losses were due to the negligent act of the repair company running the silo at 100%. Third party repair company was negligent in following instructions, not the responsibility of the defendant. SG Courts criticise Baker, believe it should not hold in commercial cases. Actions of repair company formed NAI and defendant was not found liable even for the loss when the silo was shut down for repairs.
Remoteness