Tort: Causation of damages

• Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington (1969):

  • The defendants owed a duty of care and breached it
  • They were not the cause of the man's death, as he had been murdered
• The Wagon Mound No.1 (1961):

  • The defendants were only liable for the fouling of the slipway, as that was the only foreseeable damage
• Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963):

  • The Post Office men were in breach of duty leaving the manhole unattended
  • The manner and extent of the damage caused was foreseeable
• Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (2000):

  • The House of Lords ruled that the injury of a given description must have been foreseen, not the precise injury
• Smith v Leech Brain (1962):

  • The defendant was liable despite the seriousness of the unforeseen injury, following the "eggshell-skull" rule
• Causation of Damage One-Liners:

  • Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington (1969): D must be the factual cause of C’s damage
  • The Wagon Mound No.1 (1961): Damage must be reasonably foreseeable
  • Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963): The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable
  • Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (2000): The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable
  • Smith v Leech Brain (1962): If the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, the severity of the injury is irrelevant
• Four Risk Factors:

  • Likelihood of injury
  • Seriousness of injury
  • Cost of prevention
  • Usefulness of actions
• Duty of care owed?

  Breach of duty?

  Damage caused by breach?

  Negligence?
• Objective test:

  • "ordinary person" - Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
  • Learner - Nettleship v Weston
  • Child lower - Mullin v Richards
  • Medical - Bolam Test & Bolitho
• Remoteness?

  • The foreseeability of the damage caused by the breach
• Causation:

  • Was the defendant the factual cause of the claimant’s injury?
  • If so, was the damage caused remote?
• Authority cases:

  • Donoghue v Stevenson
  • Caparo v Dickman
  • McLoughlin v O’Brien
  • Bourhill v Young
  • Mulcahy v MOD
  • Policy considerations - economic or social reasons
• Caparo test:

  • Only applicable where no precedent exists
• Additional resource:

  • Robinson v CC West Yorks
• Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington (1969):

  • The defendants owed a duty of care and breached it
  • They were not the cause of the man's death, as he had been murdered
• The Wagon Mound No.1 (1961):

  • The defendants were only liable for the fouling of the slipway, as that was the only foreseeable damage
• Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963):

  • The Post Office men were in breach of duty leaving the manhole unattended
  • The manner and extent of the damage caused was foreseeable
• Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (2000):

  • The House of Lords ruled that the injury of a given description must have been foreseen, not the precise injury
• Smith v Leech Brain (1962):

  • The defendant was liable despite the severity of the injury, as long as the type of injury was foreseeable
• Causation of Damage One-Liners:

  • Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington (1969): D must be the factual cause of C’s damage
  • The Wagon Mound No.1 (1961): Damage can only be caused by D if it was reasonably foreseeable
  • Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963): The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable, not how it happened
  • Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (2000): The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable, not how it happened
  • Smith v Leech Brain (1962): If the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, the severity of the injury is irrelevant
• Four Risk Factors:

  • Likelihood of injury
  • Seriousness of injury
  • Cost of prevention
  • Usefulness of actions
• Duty of care owed?

  Breach of duty?

  Damage caused by breach?

  Negligence?
• Objective test:

  • "ordinary person" - Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
  • Learner - Nettleship v Weston
  • Child lower - Mullin v Richards
  • Medical - Bolam Test & Bolitho
• But for? - Barnet v Chelsea & Kensington

  Remoteness?

  1. Wagonmound no.1 - damage reasonably foreseeable

  ii) Hughes v Lord Advocate - type not how it happened

  iii) Smith v Leech Brain - thin skull rule
• Caparo only where no precedent exists!

  Robinson v CC West Yorks
• Grounds for negligence:

  • Donoghue v Stevenson - Neighbour principle
  • Caparo v Dickman - Proximity
  • McLoughlin v O’Brien - Reasonable foreseeability
  • Bourhill v Young - Equitability
  • Mulcahy v MOD + Policy (economic or social reason, e.g. Alcock v CC South Yorks)
• Reference cases:

  • Paris v Stepney
  • Watt v Herts. CC