Factual Causation

• What is the primary test used to establish factual causation in negligence cases?

  The ‘but for’ test
• What must be proven regarding the defendant's actions in a negligence case?

  The defendant's actions must have fallen below the appropriate standard of care
• What was the outcome of Barnett v Kensington regarding the doctor's liability?

  • Mr. Barnett died from arsenic poisoning
  • The doctor was not liable due to the application of the 'but for' test
  • The case failed on causation
• What was the key issue in McWilliams v Sir William Arrol?

  • Claimant fell to his death at work
  • He was not wearing a safety harness
  • Employers proved he rarely used the safety belt
• What is the civil standard of proof in negligence cases?

  The balance of probabilities
• What does the balance of probabilities mean in a court case?

  The court must be convinced the case has more than a 50% likelihood of being true
• In the case of Hotson v Berkshire area health authority, what was the chance of negligence being a cause?

  25%
• Why was the claim unsuccessful in Hotson v Berkshire area health authority?

  There was only a 25% chance that negligence was a cause, leading to a 'loss of chance'
• What was the outcome of Gregg v Scott regarding the claimant's treatment delay?

  • Claimant had a 9-month delay in treatment
  • Disease-free survival dropped from 42% to 25%
  • Claim was unsuccessful due to being less than 50%
• In Jobling v Associated Dairies, what was the reason for limiting compensation?

  Compensation was limited to the point of contracting the disease
• What are the two types of multiple causes in negligence cases?

  • Concurrent causes: multiple causes at the same time
  • Successive causes: one cause following another
• What are the exceptions to the 'but for' test in negligence cases?

  • Multiple potential causes
  • Multiple sufficient causes
  • Material contribution to the harm
  • Material contribution to the risk of harm
• What was established in Bonnington v Wardlaw Castings regarding material contribution?

  • Claimant contracted pneumoconiosis
  • Harm was caused by inhaling silica particles
  • Factual causation satisfied if breach of duty contributes below 50%
• What was the significance of McGee v National Coal Board regarding risk of harm?

  • Claimant's risk of developing a condition increased
  • Breach of duty for not providing washing facilities
  • Established material contribution to the risk of harm
• What was the outcome of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority regarding material contribution?

  Claimant needed to prove material contribution
• What was the ruling in Barker v Corus UK Ltd regarding compensation for mesothelioma?

  • Claims for deaths from mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure
  • Compensation based on the period of negligent exposure
• What does the s.3 Compensation Act 2006 apply to?

  It applies to mesothelioma cases
• In Sienkiewicz v Crieff (UK) Ltd, when does the s.3 Compensation Act 2006 apply?

  It applies only when there is one negligent employer
• What was established in Fairchild v Glenhaven funeral services regarding joint liability?

  • Claimants exposed to asbestos by multiple employers
  • Unable to identify specific employer responsible
  • Each employer was jointly and severally liable