Causation

Question 1

What is factual causation?

Answer 1

A factual (causa sin qua non) is a cause that without which, the event would not have happened. Could be infinitely wide though.

Basically but for the wrongdoing of the defendant, would the pursuer have suffered loss?

Question 2

Factual causation case

Answer 2

Barnett v Chelsea 1969 - guy drank arsenic tea, was refused treatment at hospital and dies. Turns out he was completely beyond saving anyway due to the massive amount of arsenic consumed.

Establishes that when a negligent act makes no difference to the outcome (i.e. no factual causation) there is no liability.

Hospital weren’t liable as negligence of doctor did not cause his death, the arsenic was the factual cause.

Question 3

What is legal causation?

Answer 3

The most proximate cause for an event.

Responsibility for that event is thereafter allocated legally to that cause.

Question 4

What is a novus actus interveniens?

Answer 4

A new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.

Order of events crucial to consideration.

Question 5

Hammer idiot legal causation

Answer 5

Donaghy v National Coal Board 1975

Detonator left out negligently on work site. Donaghy took it home, got a hammer, smashed it and it blew up in his face.

National Coal Board acted negligently and would have been liable normally. However, Donaghy’s novus actus interveniens broke the causal chain and he took on responsibility for his injury.

The most proximate cause of injury was him taking it and hitting it, not the board’s failure to securely lock up the detonator. His action was what caused him loss, not the coal board’s so his claim was unsuccessful.

Question 6

Stair idiot legal causation.

Answer 6

McKew v Holland 1970

Guy gets injured at work and has a solid case against his employers. But he’s a bit of an idiot as when he was walking down some stairs and his injured leg gives out, he decides to try jump down and gets further injured. Sue his employer for both incidents.

Unreasonable acts by a victim break the causal chain and mean the original wrongdoer is not liable, even if the victim would not have sustained the secondary injury if not for the first one caused by the delictual wrongdoer.

Could foreseeably have factual cause that his work caused his injury but no legal cause so can claim on the first but not the second duh

Question 7

What if there are multiple, undetermined causes of an event?

Answer 7

Fairchild v Glenavon Funeral Services

If a specific factual cause cannot be determined, if it can be shown that a breach of DOC by D increased the risk of loss to P, then that increased risk may be held to be a cause, even if the cause was in fact due to another party’s negligence.

Question 8

McGhee v National Coal Board 1956

Answer 8

If there are two sources of danger, and D is only liable for one, causation can nevertheless be shown on the balance of probabilities, if the breach materially increased the risk of loss to P.