on the morning of New Year’s Day complaining of vomiting and stomach pains after drinking tea. Three night watchmen from a college went to the casualty ward of the hospital at around 5.00 a.m.
The negligence either was the cause of the damage or there was some alternative cause and the defendant is not liable.īarnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee 1 QB 428 In many cases where the negligence of the defendant is obvious the facts allow the test to operate simply and straightforwardly.
The test was explained simply and precisely by Lord Denning in Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd 2 All ER 402. The simplest proposition, and the effective starting point in establishing causation, is to say that the defendant will only be liable in negligence if the claimant would not have suffered the damage “but for” the defendant’s negligent act or omission. (This latter area is the subject of section 4.5.)Ĥ.2 Causation in fact and the ‘but for’ test ■ by establishing that the damage is still sufficiently proximate in law to hold the defendant liable to compensate the victim (causation in law – more commonly referred to as remoteness of damage). ■ according to the “but for” test, that the defendant’s negligent act or omission did in fact cause the claimant’s damage (causation in fact) The main test for establishing factual causation in an action for negligence – but for the defendant’s breach of duty the damage would not have occurred In establishing negligence the courts will measure causation in two different ways: Nevertheless, as in the other areas, policy can still play a big part in decisions. Even in those torts that are strict liability and where the claimant as a result is relieved only of the burden of proving fault causation is still an issue and the claimant must still show a direct link between the defendant’s acts or omissions and the damage suffered.Ĭausation is necessarily measured against the facts of the individual cases. This may actually be quite difficult to do, particularly where the incident leading to the damage has been the result of multiple causes or where the damage suffered is of an unusual type.Ĭausation is also clearly appropriate to other torts, not just negligence. Once the claimant has shown the existence of a duty of care and proved that it has been breached by falling below the appropriate standard of care he must still prove that the defendant’s negligent act or omission actually caused the damage.Īs with the other two elements of negligence, the burden is on the claimant to prove the causal link on a balance of probabilities. ■ Apply the tests to factual situations to determine whether the defendant has caused the damage suffered by the claimant ■ Critically analyse the concepts of causation in law and causation in fact ■ Understand the requirements for a plea of res ipsa loquitur, and the effects of a successful plea ■ Understand the test for establishing causation in law, reasonable foreseeability of harm, so that the damage is not too remote a consequence of the defendant’s breach of duty ■ Understand the possible effects on the liability of the original defendant of a plea of novus actus interveniens, where the chain of causation has been broken
■ Understand the problems that arise in proving causation in fact where there are multiple causes of the damage ■ Understand the usual means of establishing causation in fact, the “but for” test 20 Oct, 2015 CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY 0Īfter reading this chapter you should be able to:
0 kommentar(er)
