Causation

Question 1

• plaintiff was a painter and employed by sub-contractors
• contractors provided a ladder on a building site which the plaintiff fell off
• ladder was indeed defective, but as the plaintiff testified that he fell because he leant over too far, the general contractors were not held liable for his fall
• where evidence as to the factual cause is not in question, the “but for” test is appropriate

Answer 1

Kenny v O’Rourke [1972] IR 339 (SC).

Question 2

• Widow’s action against a hospital for failing to properly examine her husband after the hospital negligently turned him and two others away
• plaintiff’s husband subsequently died of arsenic poisoning
• Despite sufficient proof that the hospital had under-examined the men, in applying the “but for” test the action failed holding that the defendant’s negligence did not cause the death as even if an examination had occurred, the probability was that the deceased would have died anyway. - case failed on causation

Answer 2

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428

Question 3

plaintiff was an infant who was standing too close to the fire in her grandparents sitting room. Her coat caught fire (which was unguarded) while her grandfather had left the room to get his coat to bring her for a walk.

Answer 3

Duffy v Rooney and Dunnes Stores [1997] IEHC 102 (HC,23rd June 1997)

Question 4

• Factory employee contracted pneumoconiosis, a lung condition, from inhaling silica dust. He sued his employer in negligence.
• difficulty was that there were two sources of dust
  
  • an innocent, non negligent source, and
  • a negligent source
• Medical evidence: the disease was caused by a build up of silica dust- “but for” fails
• House of Lords: because there was no known way to avoid the negligent source of injury, the defendants had not breached their duty.
• Material contribution test of causation: plaintiff was allowed to prove that the defendant only materially contributed to his injury, not that he caused it using the ‘but for’ test.
  
  • lower threshold - easier to reach as BoP is on plaintiff, otherwise too hard to prove

Answer 4

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 61

Question 5

• Employer failed to provide showers at work.
• Employee plaintiff contracted dermatitis.
• Two sources of the injury: exposure to brick dust at work and the lack of facilities to wash it off at work.
• One is negligent, and the other is innocent, or non-negligent.
  
  • proving causation with the ‘but for’ test was impossible
• Court Held: where it can be proven that the defendant’s breach of duty had “materially increased the risk of injury”, this was sufficient for causation purposes - even lower BoP

Answer 5

McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1

Question 6

• hree plaintiffs developed a disease following exposure to asbestos dust at work.
• As the plaintiffs had worked for several different employers, they faced problems of proof in identifying the particular employer responsible for their injury.
• disease in question is not caused by cumulative exposure to asbestos dust, it can be caused by exposure to a single asbestos fibre
• Breach of duty was established against all three employers, but proving a causative link was impossible as the plaintiffs could not establish, on the balance of probabilities, the source of the fibre or fibres that initiated the disease
• Materially increased the risk of injury but only when the competing causes are identical

Answer 6

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32

Question 7

• Plaintiff sought compensation for severe brain damage suffered by a child who should not, it was alleged, have been delivered later than 35 weeks into the pregnancy
• The defendant argued that, although it was negligent in delivering the baby, there were two episodes during the pregnancy that would have caused the injuries anyway
• It was held that the facts of the case didn’t justify applying the Fairchild exception, and so dismissed the case.
• preferred using the traditional “but for” test- the damage occured before the negligent delivery (only intervention which could have saved the baby is delivering it as early as possible

Answer 7

Quinn v Mid-Western Health Board [2005] 4 IR 1

Question 8

• claimant was involved in car accident negligently caused by the defendant
• His leg was injured and because of the pain and stiffness that he suffered, he had to find alternative employment.
• One day he was shot in the same injured leg by armed robbers
  
  • difficulty was that his car accident case had not yet gone to trial
• defendant’s liability continued even after the shooting
  
  • policy concern: robbers not to be found, plaintiff would not get any compensation

Answer 8

Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 - another wrongdoing

Question 9

• The plaintiff suffered a back injury that was work-related and that left him with an ongoing disability.
• Before the plaintiff’s claim came to court, he developed an unrelated back disease.
• question for the court was whether the defendant should be liable for any of the losses occurring after the unrelated back disease arose
  
  • refused to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries suffered after the back disease because these were just ‘the vicissitudes of life’ for which the court would not award damages - policy decision

Answer 9

Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794 - natural cause

Question 10

• At the age of six, the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from a moderate Haemophillia A. As a result of the administration of two medicines, he was infected with Hepatitis C.
  
  • but for the Hepatitis C, he would have continued working in the catering industry
    which was more lucrative that the career that he had to follow as a curtain maker because of his illness
• Before that matter came to court, he had been involved in a road accident in 1977. He had to give up all employment due to his injuries, and he had had his right leg amputated.
• O’Neill J followed Jobling in saying that if the supervening event is not tortious, it can simply be described as a vicissitude of life, and the court will not award damages
  
  • Jobling should not apply where the supervening act is tortious: this should not reduce the liability of the first wrongdoer
  • If both events are tortious, then both wrongdoers will be liable for the damage that each causes

Answer 10

R(L) v Minister for Health and Children [2001] 1 IR 744 - problem of a supervening event

Question 11

• Owner of a car left it parked at the side of the road unlocked and with the key in ignition.
• The car was stolen by a joyrider and was crashed into the Plaintiff causing injuries.
• The court held that while it was reasonably foreseeable that the car would be stolen, it was not reasonably foreseeable that it would be driven carelesslessly

Answer 11

Breslin v Corcoran [2003] 2 IR 203

Question 12

• A boat was built for the defendants by a company called Fairway Fabrics Ltd. The defendants knew that the boat that was built for them was unsafe and not seaworthy.
• They knew this because at a ceremony to launch the boat, the problems with it showed up when doing trial runs. An order was made to tie up the boat, and refreshments were served in the community hall.
• But, the captain decided to take it upon himself to take 50 children out in the boat.
• The boat capsized with so many people in it, and the plaintiff’s daughter and nine others were drowned.
• The plaintiff took an action against the defendants for taking the boat out, but the defendants wanted to get a contribution to the damages from the makers of the boat.
• The Supreme Court refused to allow that – the Court said that the sole cause of the accident was the defendant’s negligence through the recklessness of their captain.

fatal accident, ship wreck with unseaworthy boat, ship owner exclusive liability- third party not a wrong-doer - not the causa causas of the death

Answer 12

Conole v Redbank Oyster Co [1976] IR 191 (SC)

Question 13

• The defendant’s employees were loading cargo into a ship.
• Due to an employee’s negligence, a plank fell into the hold of the ship.
• The plank caused a spark, which ignited some petrol vapour in the hold, causing an explosion that destroyed the ship.
• The owners were entitled to recover for the loss of the ship, even though that loss was unforeseeable, as was the way in which the loss occurred.
• It was not foreseeable that the ship would be destroyed by a plank falling to the hold, causing a spark, and that that would ignite the petrol vapour
• So under the rule of direct consequences, a person is liable or responsible for all the consequences of his wrongdoing, up until some sort of intervening act. Without such an intervening act, a defendant would be liable for all of the consequences once a factual cause was established.

Answer 13

Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 -bad law (overwritten)

Question 14

• The defendants negligently spilled oil into a harbour whilst loading their vessel. The oil spread to a nearby wharf, which was owned by the plaintiffs
• In the wharf, the plaintiffs were repairing a ship. The parties thought that the oil could not catch fire as it was floating in water. But they were wrong.
• The oil ignited because of some molten material which had dropped from the plaintiff’s welding work. That ignited some debris that was floating in the water, and in turn, ignited the oil that was floating on the water.
• The plaintiff’s wharf was damaged by the fire, and they wanted to recover that loss from the defendants.
• But the court held that although it was foreseeable that there be some damage as a result of fouling, it was not
  foreseeable that damage would be caused by a fire.
• So because the damage to the wharf was in fact caused
  by the fire, it was not held to be foreseeable, and so the
  defendants were not held to be liable.
• Introduced the principle that reasonable foreseeability should be the criterion for determining whether liability should attach to the consequences of the defendants negligence
  
  • that reasonable foreseeability of consequences is the test for remoteness of damage, and
  • that the courts might be quite precise about what type of damage was foreseeable –it was said that damage by fire was not foreseeable, but damage by fouling would have been.

Answer 14

The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] 1 AC 388

Question 15

On the question of what damage would be foreseeable, the House of Lords said that a negligent defendant will be liable, even where the precise circumstances of an accident are unforeseeable, if the injury was of a kind that was foreseeable

Answer 15

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837

Question 16

• Plaintiff was an employee of the defendant. He was injured at work whilst cutting steel bars with a hand- operated machine. The blades of the machine were blunt, and so the plaintiff had to exert more force than would normally be the case if the blades were maintained.
• The plaintiff had complained about this but nothing had been done. One day, the plaintiff, whilst cutting the steel bars felt a snap – he had suffered a hernia.
• In terms of remoteness of the damage, the defendant argued that medical evidence showed that a person will only develop a hernia if there is a congenital weakness, and there was no way of knowing this by way of an ordinary examination.
• But the court said that, even though it would not have been reasonably foreseeable, ‘The answer to this … is what is generally referred to as the “egg-shell skull rule”
• Defendant negligent, could have foreseen, accept condition of plaintiff at the time of injury

Answer 16

Burke v John Paul & Co [1967] IR 277