4/18/2017 bitsoflaw|Tort|Negligence|Damage:Causation

bits of law
TORT|Negligence

Damage:
Causation
StudyNote|Degree

11APRIL2013

Introduction
InNegligence,aclaimantmustprovethatthedefendant'sbreachofdutyowedcausedthedamageorinjurysuffered.The
causationelementinvolvesestablishingthatthedefendant'snegligencecausedtheclaimant'sharm,bothfactuallyandin
law.

Factualcausation:the'butfor'test
Theremustbeafactualdeterminationastowhetherthedefendant'sactionscausedtheclaimant'sharm.Thisisoften
referredtoasthechainofcausation.

BARNETTVCHELSEA&KENSINGTONHOSPITAL[1969]1QB428

FACTS:
Theplaintiffswerethefamilyofthevictim,whohadgonetothedefendant'shospitalbutwasnegligentlysent
homeuntreatedanddiedofarsenicpoisoningafewhourslater.Themedicalevidencesuggestedthatthe
victimwouldprobablyhavedied,evenifthepropertreatmenthadbeengivenpromptly.

ISSUE:
Didthedefendant'snegligencecausethevictim'sdeath?

HELD:
Thedefendant'snegligencedidnotcausethevictim'sdeath,thearsenicwasthecause.Thisdecision
establishedthe'butfor'test:Butforthedefendant'sbreachofduty,wouldtheharmtotheclaimanthave
occurred?Ifyes,asinthiscase,thedefendantisnotfactuallyliable.However,iftheanswerisno,then
factualcausationissatisfied.

http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegal 1/11
4/18/2017 bitsoflaw|Tort|Negligence|Damage:Causation

MCWILLIAMS(CUMMINGS)VARROL&CO[1962]1WLR295

FACTS:
Theplaintiffwasthewidowofthevictim,whofelltohisdeathwhileworkingasthedefendant'semployee.The
victimhadbeenworkingatseventyfootandthedefendantdidnotprovideasafetyharness,despitea
statutorydutytodoso.However,therewasevidencethatthevictimwouldnothavewornaharnessevenhad
itbeenprovided.

ISSUE:
Didthedefendant'sbreachofdutycausethevictim'sdeath?

HELD:
TheHouseofLordsfoundthatthedefendantwasnotliableascausationwasnotsatisfied.Theevidencethat
thevictimwouldnothavewornthesafetyharnessmeant'butfor'thedefendant'sactionsthevictimwould
stillhavedied.

Factualcausation:proof
Aclaimantmustprovethat,'onthebalanceofprobabilities',theirharmwascausedbythedefendant'sbreachofduty.

HOTSONVEASTBERKSHIREAREAHEALTHAUTHORITY[1987]AC750

FACTS:
Theplaintifffellfromatreeandhisinjurieswerethenwronglytreatedatthedefendant'shospital.Theplaintiff
wasleftpermanentlydisabled.Thedefendantadmittednegligencebutdeniedliability.Evidenceshowedthat
therewasaseventyfivepercentchancethattheplaintiff'smedicalconditionwouldhavebeenthesameeven
ifhehadreceivedthecorrecttreatment.

ISSUE:
Didthedefendant'snegligencecausetheplaintiff'sinjury?

HELD:
Causationcouldnotbeestablishedandtheclaimfailed.Therewasonlyatwentyfivepercentchancethatthe
negligentmedicaltreatmentaffectedtheclaimant'sprognosis.Therefore,itdidnotsatisfythebalanceof
probabilitiesburden,whichwouldrequiremorethanafiftypercentchance.Thisisknownasthe'allor
nothing'approach.

Factualcausation:clinicalnegligence
Clinicalnegligenceclaimsmayleadtocomplexcausationissues.

WILSHERVESSEXAREAHEALTHAUTHORITY[1988]AC1074

FACTS:
Theplaintiff,aprematurebaby,receivednegligenttreatmentatthedefendant'shospitalandwasleftblind.
However,therewerefourotherdifferent,independentpossiblecausesofhisblindness,eachalonecouldhave
beenthecause.

ISSUE:
Didthedefendant'snegligencecausetheplaintiff'sinjury?

HELD:

http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegal 2/11
4/18/2017 bitsoflaw|Tort|Negligence|Damage:Causation

Itwasfortheplaintiff,onabalanceofprobabilities,toshowthatthedefendant'snegligencecausedthe
damage,whichhecouldnotdo.Statisticallyeachpossiblecauserepresentedatwentypercentchanceof
actuallybeingthecause.TheHouseofLordsorderedaretrialontheissueofcausation.

BOLITHOVCITYANDHACKNEYHEALTHAUTHORITY[1998]AC232

FACTS:
Theplaintiffwasthemotherofthevictim,atwoyearoldchild,whosufferedseriousbraindamagefollowing
respiratoryfailureandeventuallydiedatthedefendant'shospital.Thechildwastakentothehospital,
howeveradoctordidnotattend(duetoatechnologyfailure)untilafterthevictimdied.Theplaintiffargued
thatthedoctorshouldhaveattendedandcarriedoutaspecificprocedure,whichwouldhavesavedthe
victim'slife.Thedoctortestifiedthatshewouldnothavecarriedouttheprocedureevenifshehadattended
andherevidencewasbackedbyanumberofmedicalprofessionals.

ISSUE:
Howdidthe'butfor'testapply?

HELD:
Thedefendant'snegligencewasbasedonanomissiontoact.Therefore,thecourthadtoconsiderthe'but
for'testinahypotheticalsituation.

Generally,thecourtsarecautiousaboutfindingagainstmedicalprofessionalsforpolicyreasons.Ifpatientsoften
succeededinNegligenceclaimsthenitmayaffectadoctor'swillingnesstotreatpatients,pioneeringnewprocedureswould
beunlikelytobetriedandthecostofmedicalcarewouldincreaseduetohigherinsurancepremiums.

Factualcausation:multiplecauses
Ifthereareseveralpossiblealternativecausesthenaclaimantmustshowthathisharmwascausedbythedefendant's
breach,asinWilshervEssexAreaHealthAuthority[1988].However,casesofteninvolveharmwhichmayhavebeen
causedbyacombinationofanumberoffactors.

http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegal 3/11
4/18/2017 bitsoflaw|Tort|Negligence|Damage:Causation

Materialcontributionapproach
Thecourtshavedevelopedthematerialcontributionapproachinordertohelpdeterminecausationwheremultiplecauses
contributedtotheclaimant'sharm.

BONNINGTONCASTINGSLTDVWARDLAW[1956]AC613

FACTS:
Theplaintiff,asteelworker,hadcontractedadiseasecausedbyexposuretodustfromapneumatichammer
andswinggrinders.Thedefendant,wasinbreachofastatutorydutytomaintaintheswinggrinders.
Therefore,thedefendantcouldonlybeliableinNegligenceiftheswinggrinderswerethecauseofthe
plaintiff'sdisease.

ISSUE:
Whatwasthecauseoftheplaintiff'sdisease?

HELD:
Itwasheldthat,onthebalanceofprobabilities,dustfromtheswinggrindershadmateriallycontributedto
causingtheplaintiff'sdiseaseandonthatbasiscausationcouldbeestablished.
LordReid:'..Itappearstomethatthesourceofhisdiseasewasthedustfrombothsources,andthe
realquestioniswhetherthedustfromtheswinggrindersmateriallycontributedtothedisease...[the
plaintiff]mustmakeitappearatleastthatonabalanceofprobabilitiesthebreachofdutycausedor
materiallycontributedtohisinjury...'.

BAILEYVMINISTRYOFDEFENCE[2008]EWCACIV883
WallerLJ:'..Inacasewheremedicalsciencecannotestablishtheprobabilitythat'butfor'anactof
negligencetheinjurywouldnothavehappenedbutcanestablishthatthecontributionofthenegligent
causewasmorethannegligible,the'butfor'testismodified,andtheclaimantwillsucceed...'.

MCGHEEVNATIONALCOALBOARD[1973]1WLR1

FACTS:
Theplaintiffcontracteddermatitisduetoexposuretodust,whencleaningbrickkilnsforthedefendant.
Medicalevidencesuggestedthattheonlywaytoavoidthedustabrasionswasthoroughwashingoftheskin
immediatelyaftercontact.Thedefendantnegligentlydidnotprovidewashingfacilitiesonsite.However,the
medicalevidencedidnotestablishwhetherthelackofwashing(whichthedefendantwasliablefor)ormore
generallytheexposure(whichthedefendantwasnotliablefor)wasthecause.

ISSUE:
Wassufficientcausationproved?

HELD:
Underthestrict'allornothing'approachtheplaintiffcouldnotprovethedefendantcausedhisdermatitis
(HotsonvEastBerkshireAreaHealthAuthority[1987]).Theplaintiffwasalsounabletoprovethat
defendant'sfailuretoprovideonsitewashingfacilitiesmateriallycontributedtohisdermatitis(Bonnington
CastingsLtdvWardlaw[1956]).However,theHouseofLordsfoundthatthedefendant'sfailuretoprovide
onsitewashingfacilitieswasamaterialcontributiontotheriskofinjuryandthatwassufficienttoprove
causation.

Therefore,thecourtshavemodifiedthe'butfor'test.Thismeansthataclaimantmustestablishthedefendant's
negligenceeither:materiallycontributedtotheharm(BonningtonCastingsLtdvWardlaw[1956])ormaterially
contributedtotheriskofharm(McGheevNationalCoalBoard[1973]).InWilshervEssexAreaHealthAuthority[1988],

http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegal 4/11
4/18/2017 bitsoflaw|Tort|Negligence|Damage:Causation

thedefendantcouldonlybeheldresponsibleforoneofthepossibleriskfactorsanditcouldnotbeshownthatthis
increasedtheriskoftheclaimantsufferingtheharm.Therefore,despitethewideningofthe'butfor'testtheclaimantwas
stillunabletosatisfythecausationrequirement.

Divisibleinjury
Theissuearises:towhatextentisadefendantwhoisfoundtohaveeithermateriallycontributedtotheharmormaterially
contributedtotheriskoftheharm,liablefordamages?

HOLTBYVBRIGHAM&COWAN(HULL)LTD[2000]3ALLER421

FACTS:
Theclaimantsufferedasbestosisduetoexposuretoasbestosatwork.Theasbestosiswasacumulative
condition,whichgotprogressivelyworsethelongertheexposurecontinued.Overaperiodoftime,the
claimanthadbeencarryingoutthesameworkforseveralemployers,includingthedefendant.

ISSUE:
Towhatextentwasthedefendantliable?

HELD:
Theclaimantsucceededindemonstratingamaterialcontributionfromthedefendant'snegligence.The
defendantwouldberesponsibleforaproportionoftheharmsufferedbytheclaimant.Therefore,damages
wereapportionedbetweenthedefendantandtheotheremployers(thetortfeasors)accordingtothelengthof
timetheclaimantworkedforeachemployer.Theclaimantmustmakeaclaimagainstallthetortfeasorsin
ordertorecoverfulldamages.

Indivisibleinjury
Insomecasesmorethanonedefendanthasmadeamaterialcontributiontotheclaimant'sharmbutitisnotdivisible.For
example,inaroadtrafficaccidentasingleinjurysufferedmaybetheresultoftwodifferentdefendant'snegligence.

CIVILLIABILITY(CONTRIBUTION)ACT1978
S1Entitlementtocontribution

(1)..anypersonliableinrespectofanydamagesufferedbyanotherpersonmayrecovercontributionfrom
anyotherpersonliableinrespectofthesamedamage(whetherjointlywithhimorotherwise).

http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegal 5/11
4/18/2017 bitsoflaw|Tort|Negligence|Damage:Causation

S2Assessmentofcontribution
(1)..inanyproceedingsforcontributionunderS1abovetheamountofthecontributionrecoverablefromany
personshallbesuchasmaybefoundbythecourttobejustandequitablehavingregardtotheextentofthat
personsresponsibilityforthedamageinquestion.

UnderS1(1)oftheCivilLiability(Contribution)Act1978,thedefendantsarejointlyandseverallyliableforthefull
damagesowedtoaclaimant.Thismeansaclaimantmaybringaclaimforfulldamagesagainstonlyoneofthe
defendants.Itaidsaclaimanttorecoverfulldamagesevenifoneoftheotherdefendantsisinsolventoruntraceable.In
addition,underS2(1),thecourtscanapportionliabilityfordamagesbetweenthedefendantsaccordingtotheirshareof
responsibilityfortheharmcaused.

Recentdevelopments
Arecentdecisionhasbeencriticisedforweakeningthetestforfactualcausationandtherefore,leavingemployersand
insurersvulnerabletolargeclaims.However,itcanalsobeseenasprovidingjustrecourseforclaimantswhohavesuffered
seriousharm.

FAIRCHILDVGLENHAVENFUNERALSERVICESLTD[2003]1AC32

FACTS:
Theclaimantshaddevelopedmesothelioma,acancer,causedbyexposuretoasbestos.Theclaimantshad
workedforseveralemployersandwereexposedtoasbestosineachjob.Thedefendantsweresomebutnot
alloftheemployers.Medicalevidencefailedtoshowwhichoftheemployershadbeenresponsibleforthe
exposurewhichledtothecancer.Eachdefendantarguedthatthe'butfor'testwasnotsatisfiedastheir
breachmayhavenotbeenresponsiblefortriggeringthecancer.

ISSUE:
Couldthedefendantsbeheldresponsible?

HELD:
TheCourtofAppealfoundthatthelackofmedicalcertaintymeantthatcausationcouldnotbeproved.
However,theHouseofLordsapprovedtheapproachinMcGheevNationalCoalBoard[1973],findingthat
thedefendantshadmateriallycontributedtotheriskoftheclaimantscontractingthecancer.Italsofoundthat
mesotheliomawasanindivisibleinjuryandtherefore,thedefendantswerejointlyandseverallyliable.

Anothercontroversialdecisionfollowed,whichappearedtoretractthescopeofthedecisioninFairchildvGlenhaven
FuneralServicesLtd[2003].

BARKERVCORUS[2006]2AC572

FACTS:
Theclaimantscontractedmesotheliomaworkingforanumberofemployers.However,whenthecasewas
broughtthedefendantwastheonlyemployerstilltrading.Thedefendantarguedthatifwasunfairtoimpose
jointandseveralliabilitywhentheirbreachhadonlycontributedtotheriskofharm.Thedefendantargued
liabilityshouldbeproportionateonlytotheextenttowhichtheycontributedtotherisk(thetimethattheyhad
employedtheclaimantsandexposedthemtotheasbestos).

ISSUE:
Couldthedefendantbeheldjointlyandseverallyliable?

HELD:
TheHouseofLords(majority)heldthatliabilityformesotheliomaunderFairchildvGlenhavenFuneral
ServicesLtd[2003],wasfortheriskofharmandthereforeadefendant'sliabilityshouldbeinproportionto
thecontributionhehasmadetotheriskoftheharmoccurring.Furthermore,althoughmesotheliomawasan
indivisibleinjury,theriskofitwasdivisibleandshouldbereflectedinadefendant'sliability.
http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegal 6/11
4/18/2017 bitsoflaw|Tort|Negligence|Damage:Causation

ThedecisioninBarkervCorus[2006],washeavilycriticisedforlimitingaclaimant'sabilitytoreceivedamagesinfull.
ParliamentpassedtheCompensationAct2006whicheffectivelyreversedthedecisionforclaimantssuffering
mesothelioma.However,itremainsunclearwhetherthedecisionwillbefollowedincaseswherecausationisbasedona
materialcontributiontotheriskofharm.

Factualcausation:lossofchance
Thelossofchanceconceptappliestocaseswhereaclaimantisarguingthatthedefendant'sbreachcausedtheclaimant
toloseachance,ratherthanthedefendant'sbreachbeingacauseoftheharm.Therefore,thecourtsmustfocusonthe
outcomeofeventsnotthedamagewhichoccurred.

InHotsonvEastBerkshireAreaHealthAuthority[1987],wherethedefendant'somissiontotreattheclaimantmayhave
lessenedhischanceofrecovery,theHouseofLordsdecidedtousethe'allornothing'approach.However,itrefusedto
ruleoutthepossibilityofsuccessfullossofchancecasesindifferentcircumstances.

GREGGVSCOTT[2005]WL62248

FACTS:
Theclaimanthadalumpunderhisarmwhichthedefendantdoctornegligentlydiagnosedasbenign.
Therefore,thecancerwasleftuntreatedandspreadtootherpartsoftheclaimant'sbody.Medicalevidence,
suggestedthatifthemisdiagnosishadnothaveoccurredtheclaimantwouldhavehadafortyfivepercent
chanceofrecovery.

ISSUE:
Wasthedefendantliablefortheclaimant'slossofchance?

HELD:
TheHouseofLords(majority)appliedHotsonvEastBerkshireAreaHealthAuthority[1987]andconfirmed
the'allornothing'approach.

Factualcausation:multipleinjuries
Ifaclaimanthassufferedoneinjuryorlossfollowedbyanotherandtheyarerelevanttooneanother,causationissuescan
arise.

PERFORMANCECARSVABRAHAM[1962]1QB33

FACTS:
Thedefendantnegligentlyhittheclaimant'scarandthecarrequiredarespray.However,twoweeksearlier
theclaimant'scarhadbeenhitbyanothernegligentdriver.Theinitialincidentmeantthatthecarwasinneed
ofarespraypriortotheincidentinvolvingthedefendant.

ISSUE:
Couldthedefendantbeliableforthedamage?

HELD:
TheCourtofAppealfoundthatthedefendantwasnotliableforthecostoftherespraybecausethe
defendant'sbreachhadnotcausedtheneedfortherespray.Therefore,ifaclaimanthasalreadysufferedthe
harm,asubsequentdefendantisonlyliabletotheextentthathemakestheclaimant'sharmworse.

Similarly,issuescanariseinrelationtopersonalinjuries.

RAHMANVAREAROSELTD[2001]QB351

http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegal 7/11
4/18/2017 bitsoflaw|Tort|Negligence|Damage:Causation

FACTS:
Theclaimanthadsufferedphysicalinjuriesafteraviciousassaultatwork,whichemployer,thefirst
defendant,hadnegligentlyfailedtoprotecthimfrom.Subsequently,theclaimantwasleftblindinoneeye
afterreceivingnegligenttreatment,intheseconddefendant'shospital.Furthermore,theclaimantsuffered
severecontinuingpsychiatricinjuryasaresult.Medicalevidenceshowedthatthecomplexpsychiatricinjury
couldbeattributedtothetwoseparatetortiousincidents.

ISSUE:
Towhatextentwaseachdefendantliable?

HELD:
Theclaimant'semployerwassolelyresponsiblefortheinitialinjuriesandlossofwagesresultingfromthe
attack.Thehospitalwassolelyresponsiblefortheblindness.Thecourtfoundthatbothwereliableforthe
psychiatricinjury.Onthebasisofthemedicalevidence,thepsychiatricinjurywasfoundtobedivisibleand
therefore,thedamageswereapportionedbetweentheemployerandthehospital.

http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegal 8/11
4/18/2017 bitsoflaw|Tort|Negligence|Damage:Causation

Legalcausation:interveningacts
BothfactualcausationandlegalcausationmustbeprovedinordertomakeaclaiminNegligence.Forthechainof
causationtobeprovedthedefendant'sbreachofdutymusthavecausedormateriallycontributedtotheclaimant'sinjuryor
loss.However,thechainmaybebrokenbyaninterveningevent.Extrinsicinterveningevents(novacausainterveniens)
mayoccurortheindependentactofsomeoneotherthanthedefendant(novusactusinterveniens)mayalsointerferewith
thechainofcausation.However,aninterveningeventdoesnotnecessarilybreakthechainofcausation.

Thirdparty
Theinterveningactofathirdpartymaybreakthechainofcausation.

Athirdpartyactwillnotbreakthechainofcausationifthedefendantisunderalegaldutytopreventthatact.

STANSBIEVTROMAN[1948]2KB48

FACTS:
Theclaimanthadpropertystolenfromherhouse,whenthedefendant,adecorator,leftthehouseunoccupied
andunlocked.Thedefendantwasunderatdutytosecurethepropertyifheleftthehouse.

ISSUE:
Didtheinterveningactbreakthechainofcausation?

HELD:
Thechainofcausationwasnotbroken,theactionsofthethief,wastheveryreasonthedefendantwasunder
adutytosecuretheproperty.

Athirdpartyactwillbreakthechainofcausationifitisanunforeseeableconsequenceofthedefendant'sownnegligence.

KNIGHTLEYVJOHNS[1982]1WLR349

FACTS:
Thedefendantwasdrivingnegligentlywhichledtohiscarturningoverneartheexitfromaonewaytunnel.
Thepoliceofficerwhoarrivedatthescenenegligentlydirectedtheplaintifftodrivebackupthetunnel.The
plaintiffcollidedwithanoncomingvehicleandwasinjured.

ISSUE:
Didtheinterveningactbreakthechainofcausation?

HELD:
Thechainofcausationwasbroken.Itwasforeseeablethepolicewouldattendasaresultofthedefendant's
negligence.However,thegrossnegligenceoftheofficerwasnotforeseeable.

Anegligentactofathirdpartyismorelikelytobreakthechainofcausation,butnotdefinitelybecausesome
errorsofjudgmentareforeseeable.

StephensonLJ:'..mistakesandmischancesaretobeexpected...'.

Therefore,thequestionofforeseeability,evenifthethirdpartywasnegligentwillbedecidedonthefactsofeachcase.

ROUSEVSQUIRES[1973]QB889

FACTS:
Thedefendant'scarelessdrivingresultedinhislorryskiddingandblockingtwolanesofthemotorway.The
plaintiff'shusbandstoppedtohelpthedefendant.Anotherlorrydriver,whowasalsodrivingnegligently,failed
toseetheblockagesoonenoughandkilledthevictim.

http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegal 9/11
4/18/2017 bitsoflaw|Tort|Negligence|Damage:Causation

ISSUE:
Didtheinterveningactbreakthechainofcausation?

HELD:
TheCourtofAppealfoundthatthechainofcausationwasnotbroken,asitwasreasonablyforeseeablethat
otherdriversmayarriveatthescenetoofasttostop.Boththedefendantandtheseconddriverhadmadea
materialcontributiontotheindivisibleinjury.UndertheCivilLiability(Contribution)Act1978thecourt
apportionedliabilitybetweenthem.

Aninstinctiveintervention,byathirdparty,maynotbreakthechainofcausationifitisaforeseeablereaction.

SCOTTVSHEPHERD(1773)2WMBL892

FACTS:
Thedefendantthrewalightedsquibintoacrowdedmarket.Twootherindividualspickedthesquibupand
threwitawayfromthemselvesandtheirstalls.Thesquibeventuallyexplodedinfrontoftheplaintiff,wholost
hiseye.

ISSUE:
Didtheinterveningactsbreakthechainofcausation?

HELD:
Theinterveningactsdidnotbreakthechainofcausation,asthethirdpartieswereactinginstinctivelytothe
dangerposedbythedefendant'sact.
DeGreyCJ:'..allthatwasdonesubsequenttotheoriginalthrowingasacontinuationofthefirstforce
andfirstact..anyinnocentpersonremovingthedangerfromhimselftoanotherisjustifiable...acting
underacompulsivenecessityfortheirownsafetyandselfpreservation...'.

Claimant
Aclaimant'sownactmaybreakthechainofcausation.

Acliamant'sownactmaybeanovusactusinterveniensifheactsunreasonably.

MCKEWVHOLLAND&HANNEN&CUBITTS[1969]3ALLER1621

FACTS:
Theplaintiffinjuredhislegatwork,duetohisemployer'snegligence(thedefendant).Afewdayslater,the
plaintiffwasdescendingsomesteepstepswithoutahandrail.Helostcontrolofhislegandfelldownthe
stairs,severelyfracturinghisankle.

ISSUE:
Didtheplaintiff'sinterveningactbreakthechainofcausation?

HELD:
Theplaintiff'sactdidbreakthechainofcausationbecausehetookanunreasonablerisk.

LordReid:'..iftheinjuredmanactsunreasonablyhecannotholdthedefenderliableforinjurycaused
byhisownunreasonableconduct.Hisunreasonableconductisnovusactusinterveniens.Thechain
ofcausationhasbeenbrokenandwhatfollowsmustberegardedascausedbyhisownconduct...'.

Aclaimant'sactofcarelessnessmaynotalwaysbeconsideredsounreasonableastobreakthechainofcausation.
However,itmaybeviewedascontributorynegligenceontheclaimant'spart.

SPENCERVWINCANTONHOLDINGSLTD[2009]EWCA1404

http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegal 10/11
4/18/2017 bitsoflaw|Tort|Negligence|Damage:Causation

FACTS:
Theclaimantwasinjuredatwork,resultinginhislegbeingamputated.Thedefendantwasliablewasforthis
injury.Severalmonthslater,theclaimanthadanaccident,tryingtousehisnewprosthesis,whichmeantthat
hewouldbepermanentlyconfinedtoawheelchair.

ISSUE:
Didtheclaimant'sinterveningactbreakthechainofcausation?

HELD:
Theclaimant'sactdidnotbreakthechainofcausation.Howeverhisdamageswerereducedascontributory
negligencewasacceptedasapartialdefence.
LordSedley:'..Liketheamputation,thefallwas...anunexpectedbutrealconsequenceoftheoriginal
accident,albeitonetowhich[thecliamant's]ownmisjudgementcontributed...'.

Thisarticlecanbefoundonlineatwww.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegalwherelinkstofurther
resourcesareavailable.

http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/studynote/degree/damagecausationfactuallegal 11/11