causation

Question 1

Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea Hospital (1969)

Answer 1

Facts: Patient sent home without treatment later died from arsenic poisoning — no liability.
Principle: Death inevitable; breach not a factual cause despite doctor–patient duty.

Question 2

The Ogopogo (1971)

Answer 2

Facts: Ship lost in extreme weather; alleged incompetent rescue — no liability.
Principle: Extreme natural conditions meant rescue was not a factual cause.

Question 3

Cook v Lewis (1952)

Answer 3

Facts: Two hunters negligently fired; unclear whose shot injured claimant — liable.
Principle: Burden may shift where but-for test impossible due to multiple defendants.

Question 4

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (2002)

Answer 4

Facts: Multiple employers exposed claimant to asbestos — liable.
Principle: Exceptional relaxation of but-for test where each D materially increased risk.

Question 5

Barker v Corus (2006)

Answer 5

Facts: One responsible employer missing — reduced recovery.
Principle: Liability proportionate to contribution to risk (reversed by Compensation Act 2006 s3).

Question 6

Sienkiewicz v Greif (2011)

Answer 6

Facts: Single employer asbestos exposure with background risk — liable.
Principle: Fairchild applies; statistical evidence may establish causation.

Question 7

Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks (2016)

Answer 7

Facts: Multiple asbestos exposures from different sources — liable.
Principle: Fairchild extended; statistics used to assess contribution to risk.

Question 8

Cutler v Vauxhall Motors (1970)

Answer 8

Facts: Injury accelerated surgery but caused no extra disability — no loss.
Principle: Mere acceleration not compensable absent additional harm.

Question 9

Dillon v Twin State Gas Co (1932)

Answer 9

Facts: Child electrocuted seconds before certain fall — nominal damages.
Principle: Liability for shortening life even briefly.

Question 10

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw (1956)

Answer 10

Facts: Disease caused by tortious and non-tortious dust — liable.
Principle: Material contribution to harm sufficient for causation.

Question 11

Leach v North East Ambulance Service (2020)

Answer 11

Facts: Ambulance delay worsened PTSD — liable.
Principle: Material contribution test applies where exact cause unprovable.

Question 12

McGhee v National Coal Board (1972)

Answer 12

Facts: Failure to provide washing facilities increased dermatitis risk — liable.
Principle: Material increase in risk sufficient in conditions of uncertainty.

Question 13

Page v Smith (No 2) (1996)

Answer 13

Facts: Minor accident triggered psychiatric illness — liable.
Principle: More than negligible increase in risk sufficient for primary victims.

Question 14

Kay v Ayrshire and Arran Health Authority (1989)

Answer 14

Facts: Multiple possible causes of condition — no liability.
Principle: Claimant must prove negligence more likely than not caused harm.

Question 15

Wilsher v Essex AHA (1988)

Answer 15

Facts: Blindness had several potential causes — no liability.
Principle: Claimant must prove tortious cause more likely than non-tortious.

Question 16

Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority (1987)

Answer 16

Facts: Delay reduced recovery chances from 75% — no liability.
Principle: No recovery for loss of chance; all-or-nothing approach.

Question 17

Temple v South Manchester Health Authority (2002)

Answer 17

Facts: Failure to diagnose reduced recovery prospects — no liability.
Principle: Claimant must show damage more likely caused by negligence.

Question 18

Gregg v Scott (2005)

Answer 18

Facts: Misdiagnosis reduced survival chance from 45% to 25% — no liability.
Principle: Loss of chance not actionable in negligence.

Question 19

Chester v Afshar (2004)

Answer 19

Facts: Surgeon failed to warn of small inherent risk that materialised — liable.
Principle: Causation rules relaxed to protect patient autonomy, not standalone loss.

Question 20

Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (2018)

Answer 20

Facts: Injury from unknown risk not warned of — no liability.
Principle: Causation fails unless claimant would have refused or delayed treatment.

Question 21

Diamond v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (2019)

Answer 21

Facts: Failure to warn of risk; injury occurred — no liability.
Principle: Must satisfy but-for test or Chester; breach alone insufficient.

Question 22

Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government (1952)

Answer 22

Facts: Collision damage followed by storm damage — chain broken.
Principle: Independent natural events may break chain if not exacerbated.

Question 23

Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982)

Answer 23

Facts: Back injury eclipsed by unrelated illness — liability ended.
Principle: Natural events can end liability once damage eclipsed.

Question 24

The Oropesa (1943)

Answer 24

Facts: Seaman died in unreasonable rescue attempt — chain broken.
Principle: Novus actus where conduct is unreasonable or extraneous.

Question 25

Knightley v Johns (1982)

Answer 25

Facts: Police negligence caused secondary collision — chain broken. Principle: Intervening positive acts more likely to break chain.

Question 26

Stansbie v Troman (1948)

Answer 26

Facts: Decorator left house unlocked enabling burglary — chain intact. Principle: Foreseeable criminal acts do not break chain.

Question 27

Haynes v Harwood (1935)

Answer 27

Facts: Rescuer injured stopping runaway horses — chain intact. Principle: Rescue is foreseeable response to danger.

Question 28

Prendergast v Sam & Dee (1989)

Answer 28

Facts: Two negligent drivers injured claimant — both liable. Principle: Successive positive torts do not necessarily break chain.

Question 29

Robinson v Post Office (1974)

Answer 29

Facts: Negligent medical treatment worsened injury — chain intact. Principle: Courts reluctant to treat treatment as novus actus.

Question 30

R v Cheshire (1991)

Answer 30

Facts: Victim died after grossly negligent medical treatment — chain intact. Principle: Only extraordinary treatment breaks chain.

Question 31

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets (1969)

Answer 31

Facts: Claimant injured due to vulnerability caused by original injury — chain intact. Principle: Defendant takes claimant as found.

Question 32

McKew v Holland and Hannan and Cubitts (1969)

Answer 32

Facts: Claimant took unreasonable risk descending stairs — chain broken. Principle: Claimant’s unreasonable act may break chain.

Question 33

Pigney v Pointers Transport (1957)

Answer 33

Facts: Suicide following injury-induced depression — liable. Principle: Chain intact where claimant lacked real choice or control.

Question 34

Corr v IBC Vehicles (2008)

Answer 34

Facts: Suicide following injury-related depression — liable. Principle: Suicide may be foreseeable consequence of tort.

Question 35

Baker v Willoughby (1970)

Answer 35

Facts: Second tort damaged already injured leg — partial liability. Principle: First tortfeasor liable for loss during original damage period.