Causation and Remoteness:
Claimant (C) must establish a sufficiently proximate link of causation between Defendant’s (D’s)
wrongful act or omission and the damage to C.
Duty – breach – causation (fact/law) - damages need to be established. The causation of fact is an
enquiry of fact to see if the defendant’s tort was a necessary part of the damage, and causation in
law is so limits can be set for the consequences of being held liable, ensuring proportionate burdens
on defendants.
1. was D’s wrongful act or omission a cause in fact of C’s harm?
2. even if the act or omission was a cause in fact of the harm, is the harm nevertheless too
remote a consequence, or the result of a new intervening cause or harm that falls outside
the scope of the duty of care?
Factual Causation (Causation in Fact):
(i) The pragmatic approach:
Yorkshire Dale Steamship Co v Minister of War Transport [1942] saw Lord Wright state causation as
‘the man in the street’ would understand it. However, this common-sense approach is problematic
due to legal language, as qualifying cause’ with ‘proximate’ and ‘remote’.
(ii) The ‘but for’ test:
“But for the defendant’s negligence (or other tort) would the claimant have been injured?”. If the
answer is “no”, the negligence (or other tort) was a cause of the harm. This involves considering the
hypothetical (or counterfactual) scenario that would probably have happened had the defendant
acted carefully, changed to the extent needed to demonstrate compliance in the law by the
defendant.
Claimant must show on a balance of probabilities that the defendant’s act or omission was in fact a
cause of the claimant’s harm.
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]. Breach of duty in the
doctor-patient relationship, no liability for damages on the facts due to lack of causation, as on
medical evidence, even the doctor’s help would not have prevented the death due to arsenic
poisoning.
Hypothetical causes that may have caused C’s loss also accounted for in the ‘but for’ test, as in
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol [1962]. Fatal accident, widow sued employer for breach of statutory
duty and negligence, due to lack of safety belts, the Lords held no liability for damages due to facts of
the case, that even with safety belts the individual who died wouldn’t have worn it anyway. Thus,
even if belts were provided, it would have made no difference to the outcome.
Robinson v The Post Office [1974]. Doctor was negligent in not following the proper test-dose
procedure, patient suffered reaction due to too large a serum, breach of duty owed to the patient.
However, patient’s reaction was after the 30-minute guideline, making no difference to the outcome
of this case, so no liability for damages. Wright v Cambridge Medical Group [2011]. GP negligently
failed to arrange to see sick baby’s mother, and if he had arrived the baby would have been in
hospital on 15th, condition worsened and another GP referred baby 17 th, diagnosis occurred on 21st,
illness was permanent by that point, no formal finding of negligence against the hospital, trial judge
Claimant (C) must establish a sufficiently proximate link of causation between Defendant’s (D’s)
wrongful act or omission and the damage to C.
Duty – breach – causation (fact/law) - damages need to be established. The causation of fact is an
enquiry of fact to see if the defendant’s tort was a necessary part of the damage, and causation in
law is so limits can be set for the consequences of being held liable, ensuring proportionate burdens
on defendants.
1. was D’s wrongful act or omission a cause in fact of C’s harm?
2. even if the act or omission was a cause in fact of the harm, is the harm nevertheless too
remote a consequence, or the result of a new intervening cause or harm that falls outside
the scope of the duty of care?
Factual Causation (Causation in Fact):
(i) The pragmatic approach:
Yorkshire Dale Steamship Co v Minister of War Transport [1942] saw Lord Wright state causation as
‘the man in the street’ would understand it. However, this common-sense approach is problematic
due to legal language, as qualifying cause’ with ‘proximate’ and ‘remote’.
(ii) The ‘but for’ test:
“But for the defendant’s negligence (or other tort) would the claimant have been injured?”. If the
answer is “no”, the negligence (or other tort) was a cause of the harm. This involves considering the
hypothetical (or counterfactual) scenario that would probably have happened had the defendant
acted carefully, changed to the extent needed to demonstrate compliance in the law by the
defendant.
Claimant must show on a balance of probabilities that the defendant’s act or omission was in fact a
cause of the claimant’s harm.
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]. Breach of duty in the
doctor-patient relationship, no liability for damages on the facts due to lack of causation, as on
medical evidence, even the doctor’s help would not have prevented the death due to arsenic
poisoning.
Hypothetical causes that may have caused C’s loss also accounted for in the ‘but for’ test, as in
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol [1962]. Fatal accident, widow sued employer for breach of statutory
duty and negligence, due to lack of safety belts, the Lords held no liability for damages due to facts of
the case, that even with safety belts the individual who died wouldn’t have worn it anyway. Thus,
even if belts were provided, it would have made no difference to the outcome.
Robinson v The Post Office [1974]. Doctor was negligent in not following the proper test-dose
procedure, patient suffered reaction due to too large a serum, breach of duty owed to the patient.
However, patient’s reaction was after the 30-minute guideline, making no difference to the outcome
of this case, so no liability for damages. Wright v Cambridge Medical Group [2011]. GP negligently
failed to arrange to see sick baby’s mother, and if he had arrived the baby would have been in
hospital on 15th, condition worsened and another GP referred baby 17 th, diagnosis occurred on 21st,
illness was permanent by that point, no formal finding of negligence against the hospital, trial judge
