what is causation?
Causation is the idea that the breach of duty has caused the injury or damage being claimed. This is called factual causation.
Causation in law decides if the injury or damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable. Both elements have to be proved for a negligence claim to succeed.
what are the 2 types of causation that have to be proven?
- factual causation > but ‘for’ test
- legal causation > remoteness + intervening acts
what is meant by ‘chain of causation’?
‘the link between the defendant’s act or omission and the injury, loss or damage caused to the claimant.’ it connects the negligent act and the corresponding result.
what is factual causation?
Factual causation is the starting point - if factual causation cannot be proved there is no need to consider legal causation
what is legal causation?
Causation in law decides if the injury or damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable. Both elements have to be proved for a negligence claim to succeed.
what is the ‘But For’ Test? (Factual Causation)
“but for the defendant’s act or omission the injury or damage would not have occurred”
Barnett case: 3 men ill after drinking tea, duty doctor, who did not come to examine the men but, instead, recommended that they go home and see their own doctors. One of the men went home and died a few hours later from poisoning by arsenic. evidence showed that by the time the husband had called at the hospital it was already too late to save his life. This meant that his death was not caused by the doctor’s breach of duty of care and so the claim failed
what are the intervening Acts + case? (legal causation)
- Sometimes another event in the chain of causation will be enough to break the chain and the defendant will no longer be liable for the full extent of the harm
- Jobling case: claimant slipped at work and injured his back which reduced his earning capacity. Three years later he developed a spinal disease that was unrelated Held: spinal disease was a novus actus interveniens and the employer was not responsible for losses incurred after the disease occurred.
What does ‘reasonably foreseeable mean?
‘A real and not-far fetched risk’ of that particular type of damage happening’
what is Remoteness of damage (legal causation)?
- You have to establish that the damage was not too remote. The test for remoteness is: “whether there is a direct, foreseeable causation”
- Wagon Mound: D. negligently discharged fuel from his ship into Sydney Harbour. The oil drifted across to a wharf where welding works were taking place. oil did ignite damaging the claimant’s property held that the defendants were not liable for the damage to the claimant’s property. The major damage to the property caused by the ignition of the oil was too remote from the original discharge of oil.
what is the eggshell skull’ rule + case?
defendant must take their victim as they find them. If the type of injury or damage is reasonably foreseeable, but it is much more serious because the claimant had a pre-existing condition, then the defendant is liable for all the subsequent consequences.
illustrated in the case of Smith v Leech Brain and Co. (1962).
what happened in the case Smith v Leech Brain and Co. (1962) ?
The man had an existing pre-cancerous condition. The burn eventually brought about the onset of full cancer and the man died. The court decided that as a burn was reasonably foreseeable, because of the eggshell skull rule the defendant was liable for the man’s death. You take your victim as you find them
