Causation

• Factual causation


  Showing the link between the defendant's act or omission and the injury or loss caused
• Legal causation


  When the defendant is legally responsible for the injury or loss
• Sine qua non


  The 'but for' test - it must be shown that but for the defendant's act or omission the claimant would not have suffered damage or loss
• Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969]


  • Man went to hospital but was turned away, later died of arsenic poisoning, hospital not liable as 'but for' test not met
• Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1965]


  • Claimant became ill from dust in foundry, defendants liable as both types of dust materially contributed
• McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]

  • Employer liable for not providing wash facilities, as this materially increased the risk of injury
• Lord Reid in McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]: '"From a broad and practical viewpoint I can see no substantial difference between saying that what the defender did materially increased the risk of injury to the pursuer and saying that what the defender did made a material contribution to his injury."'
• Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003]


  • Each employer who exposed employee to asbestos liable as they materially increased the risk of harm
• Lord Bingham in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003]: '"I am of opinion that such injustice as may be involved in imposing liability on a duty-breaking employer in these circumstances is heavily outweighed by the injustice of denying redress to a victim."'
• Loss of chance


  Cases where the defendant's negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to avoid a loss
• Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1988] and Gregg v Scott [2005] are cases involving loss of chance
• Novus actus interveniens


  A new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation
• Knightley v Johns [1982]


  • Instructions from senior police officer to drive wrong way through tunnel were a novus actus interveniens
• Baker v Willoughby [1969]


  • Shooting of claimant did not break chain of causation from original car accident injury
• Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982]

  • Unrelated spinal disease was a novus actus interveniens
• McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969]

  • Claimant's decision to use stairs without handrail was a novus actus interveniens
• Lord Reid in McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969]: '"[If] the injured man acts unreasonably he cannot hold the defender liable for injury caused by his own unreasonable conduct. His unreasonable conduct is novus actus interveniens."'