Self-test questions: Causation & Remoteness

. What is the name of the test for factual causation?

The "real" cause test.

The "but for" test.

Remoteness of damage

The "causal link" test.

The "relevant" cause test.

. Phil had a terminal illness. He went to hospital but the doctor was too busy to properly examine him and sent him home, telling him that if he didn't feel better in the morning he should return to the hospital. Phil died overnight. The doctor fell below the standards of a reasonable doctor, who would have examined Phil, run some tests and possibly even kept Phil in for observation. Is the doctor liable for Phil's death?

Yes, the doctor is clearly negligent so is responsible for his failures.

Yes, the doctor failed to act as a reasonable doctor and should have investigated Phil's condition more carefully, so is liable.

No, there are multiple potential causes of Phil's death and it is not possible to say which was the operating cause at the time of his death.

No, the doctor's negligence was irrelevant, and Phil would have died whatever the doctor had done, so there is no liability.

No, the doctor's negligence is relevant, but Phil's death is too remote, so he is not liable.

. Bobbi is undergoing surgery and problems occur, she is left with permanent paralysis in her left leg. Bobbi wishes to sue the hospital for negligence. One of the doctors attending her was clearly negligent in his actions, but there are also 3 other potential causes of paralysis, which are non-negligent in origin. Will Bobbi be successful in bringing a claim for negligence against the doctor in relation to this?

Yes, Bobbi can establish the doctor's negligence so will be able to establish his liability.

Yes, Bobbi can establish that the doctor's negligence was a material cause of the damage she suffered.

Yes, Bobbi can bring a successful claim in relation to all 4 probable causes of harm, including the doctor.

No, none of the causes satisfy the "but for" test to the required standard, so liability will not be established.

No, causation is too complex and damage too remote.

. Austin is injured in a road traffic accident caused by Gary's negligence, he suffers a back injury which causes him significant pain and suffering. 6 months later, while he is recovering, he is knocked over on a pedestrian crossing by Chris riding his motorbike. Austin breaks his arm, but also exacerbates his back injury. Whilst he was originally expected to recover in 1-2 years from the accident with Gary, the prognosis is now that he will be left with permanent back problems. What harm will Austin recover damages for if he sues Gary and Chris?

Gary will be liable for damages in relation to all injuries.

Gary will be liable for damages in relation to the original back injury only and Chris will be liable for all additional injuries.

Gary will be liable for damages in relation to the broken arm, but Chris will be liable for the back injuries.

Chris will be liable for damages for the broken arm, but Gary will be liable for the back injuries.

Chris will be liable for damages in relation to all injuries.

. Simone is negligently exposed to asbestos in her work at the BigShop factory, but she was also exposed in a non-negligent way as there was asbestos in the atmosphere in the area near the factory. Simone has also been negligently exposed to asbestos in another job working for SmallShop which has subsequently been declared bankrupt. Simone develops mesothelioma. Who can Simone bring a claim for damages in negligence against and how will it operate?

No, the causation is complex and Simone cannot prove which of the probable causes were responsible for her mesothelioma.

No, the claim will fail against all Defendants as Simone cannot prove her claim on the balance of probabilities using the "but for" test.

Yes, all Defendants are jointly and severally liable, so Simone can bring a claim against any of them.

Yes, liability will be proportionate, so Simone can recover damages from BigShop who are solvent, but not SmallShop which is bankrupt, and there will be a reduction for the innocent exposure.

Yes, liability will be proportionate, so Simone can recover damages proportionately from all negligent Defendants, so can bring a claim against both BigShop and SmallShop.

. Harry is exposed to brick dust at work but his employer BuildCo fails to provide adequate washing facilities to enable him to clean up at the end of the day. Harry has to travel home each day covered in the dust. He develops a skin condition which could have occurred from working with the brick dust, but the prolonged exposure materially increased the risk of the condition developing. Can Harry recover damages from BuildCo for materially increasing the risk of developing a skin condition?

No, Harry's claim will fail on the "but for" test as he cannot prove on the balance of probabilities that the dust caused the skin condition.

No, materially increased risk of harm is not material contribution to harm, therefore the causation is not proved.

Yes, the damage would need to be apportioned between the innocent exposure to brick dust at work and the negligent exposure after work, and Harry can recover proportionately for the time in relation to which he was negligently exposed.

Yes, this is an established duty situation so "but for" BuildCo's negligence, Harry would not have suffered harm.

Yes, materially increased risk of harm is equivalent to material contribution and that is sufficient to establish causation on the balance of probabilities.

. The case of Chester v Afshar [2004] was one in which a patient was not informed of a small risk in a back operation which subsequently materialised. The surgeon accepted that he had failed in his duty to inform the patient about all risks, however small, and the Claimant indicated that had she known of this risk she would have taken more time to think about the surgery but ultimately gone ahead. How did the Claimant establish causation?

By a straightforward use of "but for" principles.

The Defendant's failure to warn the Claimant was a breach of the duty to advise which was closely connected to her ability to consent and was the cause of the harm.

The failure to warn the Claimant of the risks was a material increased risk of the harm suffered.

The failure to warn the Claimant of the risks was a material contribution to the harm suffered.

The Claimant did not establish causation - the "but for" test failed.

. What is the principle that was used in the case of Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] in the Court of Appeal, to get around the evidential difficulties of causation, and discussed in the House of Lords?

The "but for" test.

The material increase in risk.

The material contribution to risk.

The balance of probabilities.

Loss of chance.

. What is the leading case in relation to the appropriate test for remoteness of damage (or legal causation)?

Re. Polemis

Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd.

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC

The Wagon Mound

Wilsher v Essex AHA

. The test for legal causation or remoteness of damage is reasonable foreseeability, what does this mean in practice?

The Claimant must prove that the kind/type of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable, the manner of infliction of damage was foreseeable and the extent of the damage was foreseeable.

The Claimant must prove that the manner of infliction of damage was foreseeable and the extent of the damage was foreseeable.

The Claimant must prove that the kind/type of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable and the extent of the damage was foreseeable.

The Claimant must prove that the kind/type of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable and the manner of infliction of damage was foreseeable.

The Claimant must prove that the kind/type of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable.

. Trevor negligently fails to deal with a rat infestation in his factory. Benjy is one of his employees and is injured when the rats chew through cables and he suffers an electric shock. Will Benjy be able to claim for the harm caused by the electric shock?

Yes, Benjy can recover for all harm that is a direct consequence of Trevor's negligence.

Yes, if physical injury from rat bites is foreseeable, then physical injury from other rat-related causes would be too.

No, the electric shock is a different kind or type of harm to rat bites, so would be too remote and not recoverable.

No, it was not reasonably foreseeable that the rats would cause harm, merely annoyance, so Benjy's injuries are too remote and not recoverable.

No, physical injury from the rats was not foreseeable, whereas property damage was, so Benjy could not recover for his injuries.

. Miles has osteoporosis which means that his bones are more fragile and likely to break. Miles is involved in an accident caused by Gwen's negligence when she wheels her bike at low speed and bumps into Miles because she was not paying sufficient attention. Miles suffers a broken arm in the accident. Gwen argues that the average person would not have suffered more than minor bruising and scratches in the accident and she should not therefore be liable for Miles' broken arm. Will Gwen's argument be successful?

Yes, the osteoporosis operates as an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) which means that Gwen is only liable for the minor injuries.

Yes, Gwen is only liable for foreseeable injuries, and the extent of injuries were not foreseeable, so Gwen is not liable for the full extent of Miles' injuries.

Yes, Gwen is only liable for the foreseeable kind or type of injuries and broken bones were not a foreseeable type of injury.

No, Gwen is liable for the full extent of injuries as long as some injuries were foreseeable.

No, Gwen is liable for the full extent of injuries as she is liable for all direct consequences of her negligence.

. Hetty is injured in a road traffic accident caused by Jools and has to wear a surgical neck collar. The collar restricts her ability to turn her head and affects her use of her bifocal glasses. Hetty falls down some stairs, as she is unable to move her head, and injures her ankle. Hetty wishes to claim damages from Jools for the broken ankle as well as the original neck injury, is she likely to be successful?

Yes, Hetty acted as carefully as she was able, due to her original injuries and treatment, and so her ankle injury was caused by Jools' negligence.

Yes, Jools is liable for all ensuing injuries whilst Hetty is recovering from the neck injury, once recovered the liability will cease.

Yes, Hetty acted unreasonably but that will only be relevant for contributory negligence which will reduce the damages recoverable.

No, the broken ankle is irrelevant, Jools is only liable for damages for injuries caused in the original accident.

No, Hetty acted unreasonably in the circumstances and so her act breaks the chain of causation.

. Jonathan driving negligently caused a serious road traffic accident and the police were called to the scene. The commanding police officer sent Colin (a police officer) to drive the wrong way through a tunnel to stop the traffic to prevent further accidents. Colin was seriously injured when his motorcycle collided with a car. Colin wishes to claim damages from Jonathan for causing the accident. Will Colin succeed in his claim?

Yes, Jonathan caused the accident due to his negligence and is liable for all of the foreseeable consequences including the injuries to Colin.

Yes, Jonathan is liable for Colin's injuries as a rescuer acting reasonably in the circumstances.

Yes, Jonathan is liable for Colin's injuries as a rescuer following orders in an emergency.

No, Colin is negligent in driving the wrong way through the tunnel (or consented to run the risk of injury - so the defence of assumption of risk/volenti non fit injuria could apply), so he will not be able to recover any damages from Jonathan.

No, the police officer who gave Colin the negligent instruction broke the chain of causation between Jonathan's negligence and Colin's injuries.

. Which of the following is NOT capable of acting as an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) breaking the chain of causation?

Deliberate wrongdoing by a criminal.

A third party responding to the Defendant's actions, albeit negligently.

Reasonable acts of the Defendant.

Unreasonable acts of the Claimant.

Natural acts or events.

Quiz Content