CAUSATION

• Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital


  But for test
• Wilsher v Essex AHA


  where there are a number of possible causes for the damage the claimant must prove that the defendants breach was the factual cause of harm or a material contribution
• Fairchild v Glenhaven


  If the claimants could demonstrate that one employer had materially contributed to the risk of contracting this type of lung cancer, they were entitled to claim full compensation from that one employer
• Baker v Corus


  Damages are divided between each employer
• Collet v Smith


  loss of chance for a football career due to D's negligence
• Gregg v Scott


  C had a 45% survival rate lasting 10 years which was then reduced to 25%. Late diagnosis made little difference to C's survival rate which as it was under 50%
• Wagon Mound


  it's foreseeable that refuelling the ship would result in some oil spillage and cause damage but NOT foreseeable that this would then result in a fire. The damage caused by the fire was too remote.
• Bradford v Robinson Rentals


  It was reasonably foreseeable and not considered too remote
• Smith v Littlewoods


  D not liable as there was no intervening act as the damage could not have been foreseen and the law is unwilling to impose liability for the deliberate act of a third party
• Corr v IBC Vehicles


  depression following a serious injury at work and the subsequent suicide resulting from the original negligent ac by the employer did not break the chain of causation and he employer was held liable as the suicide was a direct and foreseeable consequence of the breach
• Smith v Leech Brain


  the defendant can still be held liable if the claimant suffers from any weaknesses even if the death by cancer is not foreseen. The thin skull rule applies and you must take your victim as you find them.