• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How courts determine causation

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Word count (excluding footnotes, endnotes, bibliography, etc.): The aim of the following essay is to critically analyse how the courts determine causation in the tort of negligence. The essay will explain the meaning of causation and establish the difference between causation in fact and causation in law. The essay seeks to analyse the steps involved in establishing causation and identify crucial cases. Lastly, the essay will discuss its relevance in present times. To understand the concept of causation, it is important to understand the idea behind the tort of negligence. According to Percy Winfield, ?negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to the claimant.? 1 Therefore, if a claimant brings an action in negligence it is important to establish not only was there a duty of care and a breach of the duty, but it is also essential to establish that there has been some form of damage which is legally recognized. This is where the concept of causation arises. What is causation? Causation seeks to ?establish a link between the claimant?s harm and the defendant so as to allocate responsibility for the harm and, to some extent, the risk.?2 ________________ To determine whether there has been some sort of legal damage, it is important to divide the two aspects of Causation- causation in fact and remoteness. Causation is fact seeks to resolve whether ?the defendant?s act (or omission) ...read more.

Middle

is similar to that of Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw. In McGhee, it was established that ?material increase of risk was treated by majority of judges as equivalent to material contribution. The House of Lords reversed the burden of proof, shifting it onto the defendant who then had to show that there was another, more likely, cause than their negligence.?15 In the case of McGhee, there was only one cause which caused the claimant the harm. However, in yet another case of medical negligence, Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988) ?there were five factors which could be the reason behind the harm caused the claimant. Based on probability, the claimant could not prove that excess oxygen had been the cause of the harm done. In the Court of Appeal, the judges followed the decision in McGhee and the claimant succeeded. However, when the case was taken to the House of Lords, McGhee was distinguished as it was obvious that the harm caused was a result of the defendants? negligence.? 16 ________________ One of more recent problems surrounding the ?but for? test is asbestos. In the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (2003), ?the claimant sought damages for asbestos induced mesothelioma. The claimants had been exposed to asbestos dust working for more than one employer but could not show on balance of probabilities which exposure had caused disease. The House of Lords allowed all the appeals of the claimants thus, taking a relaxed approach towards the ?but for? test.?17 ________________ 14 Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) ...read more.

Conclusion

, ?the defendant?s negligent driving was an operative cause of the victim?s death. However, road users owe a duty of care to other road users even if they are driving without care but not to reckless drivers.?32 However, in a similar case, Wright v Lodge (1993), it was held that ?not every cause "but for which" an accident would not have happened can be said to have been causative in law for the purposes of determining liability.?33 ________________ In current times, there have been some more challenges surrounding causation which is seen in the case of Chester v Afshar (2004) where ?a neurosurgeon failed to warn a patient of the small risk of injury inherent in surgery though the neurosurgeon had not acted negligently while carrying out the operation. Though the claimant suffered a rare complication known as cauda equina syndrome, the increase in risk of contracting the disease was not caused by failure of informing the patient.?34 ________________ Therefore, in conclusion, the essay explored the ways in which courts establish causation. Various cases and their impacts were analysed as well as the challenges that surround establishing causation. Even though courts may find ways around causation, it is crucial in the Tort of Negligence. ________________ 29 Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals Ltd (1971) 30 V Bermingham & C Brennan, Tort Law DIRECTIONS (1st edn, OUP 2008) 103 31 W V H Rogers, Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (17th edn, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd 2006) 311 32 Rouse v Squires (1973) Q.B. 889 33 Wright v Lodge (1993) 4 All E.R. 299 34 Chester v Afshar (2004) UKHL 41 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. Consider what is meant by concurrent liability in tort and contract. Using examples from ...

    The defendants were nominated subcontractors for the flooring. It was alleged that the defendants had carelessly installed sub-standard flooring. It that was so, then the plaintiffs would normally have had an action in contract against A and in turn, would have had a contract action against the defendants.

  2. To succeed in a negligence action in tort, the claimant must prove three things

    Was a duty owed? If Mr and Mrs Fontes were aware that the staircase was defective then they would owe Mr Arantes a duty of care, but it would need to be proved that they were aware of the defective staircase.

  1. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002].

    He failed to establish that the employer was at fault in sending him in to clean the kilns before they had cooled further. But the court concluded that the employer was at fault in not providing showers to enable McGhee to wash the abrasive brick dust off his body before cycling home.

  2. To what difficulties had the use of a 'but-for' test of factual causation in ...

    But it was too late for an operation at this point, which leads to him getting an illness resulting in the loss of mobility in his hip. The claimants argued that they are suing for the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome, which would have been achieved through a prompt diagnosis and correct medical treatment.

  1. Causation and Remoteness.

    But safety equipment was provided. Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors [1985] This is authority for medical risk disclosure. Here, the patient alleges that his doctor had been negligent in disclosing risk information for a proposed procedure. However, even if such negligence is proven, he still had to prove that had the information been disclosed he would have declined the treatment, thus avoiding that risk.

  2. Describe the elements of the Tort of Negligence and critically analyse their practical applications.

    apply to certain cases, such as for example the duties of professionals. An individual "who has knowledge, skill or expertise superior to that of the ordinary person" will be held for a standard of care expected of a reasonable person with the same knowledge, skills or expertise, and failure to

  1. Negligence, causation and remoteness case. To advise the claimants, Abdul, Brian and Christie, it ...

    5) In the case of secondary victims; (i) Do they have close ties of love and affection with the other persons involved? (ii) Do they have a direct perception of the event unfolding or the aftermath? Abdul is suffering a recurrence of a previous mental illness as a consequence of being terrified.

  2. In the generality of personal injury actions, it is of course true that ...

    The atmosphere and environment of the working location were hot and dusty. However, the claimant has provided no adequate washing facilities by the defendant, the National Coal Board. The claimant was found to be infected by dermatitis subsequently after some days.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work