Scribd
Upload
38 views23 pages

4 Causation and Remoteness of Damage

The document discusses the concept of causation in negligence law, distinguishing between 'causation in fact' and 'causation in law', and emphasizes the importance of proving that a defendant's actions directly caused the claimant's damage. It also explores the principle of 'Res Ipsa Loquitur' and the conditions under which it applies, as well as the concepts of novus actus interveniens and contributory negligence. Additionally, it outlines the legal implications of voluntary assumption of risk (Volenti non fit injuria) and the criteria for establishing negligence in a claimant's case.

Uploaded by

shawnhuggins1234
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
38 views23 pages

4 Causation and Remoteness of Damage

The document discusses the concept of causation in negligence law, distinguishing between 'causation in fact' and 'causation in law', and emphasizes the importance of proving that a defendant's actions directly caused the claimant's damage. It also explores the principle of 'Res Ipsa Loquitur' and the conditions under which it applies, as well as the concepts of novus actus interveniens and contributory negligence. Additionally, it outlines the legal implications of voluntary assumption of risk (Volenti non fit injuria) and the criteria for establishing negligence in a claimant's case.

Uploaded by

shawnhuggins1234
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 23

Arthur Sike

LLB (Unza), LLM (Turin), AHCZ, Dip. (Business Admin.)


 What is Causation?
 Causation in this breath refers to the actions of
the defendant which led to a breach of duty
and that the damage was not too remote.
 The term causation can bee looked at two fold:
“causation in fact” and “causation in law”
Causation in fact considers the question of
whether as a matter of fact, the damage was
caused by the breach of duty.
 Causation in law simply means that the law
stipulates what actions qualify to cause damage.
 As a recap from our previous session; the third
feature in a claimant’s case in negligence is
damage……therefore, the claimant must
demonstrate that the damage was caused by the
defendant!
 Under causation, a negligent action can only
succeed if the claimant can establish that the
defendant caused the damage for failing to adhere
to the standard of duty principle.
 An event which occurs after the breach of duty,
and which contributes to the claimant’s damage,
may break the chain of causation, so as to render
the defendant not liable for any damage beyond
this point. Where this occurs, the event is known
as novus actus interveniens.
 Furthermore, damage may be too remote if the
chain of causation is interrupted by an extraneous
act. The intervening act may be that of the
Plaintiff himself or the third party. Case of
Harnett V. Bond [1925] A.C. 669
 “The Plaintiff, when a lunatic on probation,
visited the defendant, a Commissioner in Lunacy,
who, mistakenly thinking him to be still mad,
detained him until he could be taken back to
asylum. It was nine years before he regained his
freedom, and he sued the defendant for false
imprisonment. He recovered damages for the
short period in Bond’s office but the reminder
was too remote as a new act, the exercise of the
asylum owner’s discretion, had intervened”.
 But UNLAWFUL ACTS do not necessarily break the chain of
causation. The case of PIGNEY V. POINTERS TRANSPORT
SERVICES LTD [1957] 1 W.L.R. 1122
 P. received head injuries in an accident caused by the defendants’
negligence. Injuries caused NEUROSIS and P. committed suicide. It
was held that P’s widow could recover damages under the Fatal
Accidents Act as P’s suicide was directly traced to his injury.
 Novus actus interveniens is a defence BUT may not be available if
the defendant should have realized that this type of intervention was
just what was likely to be occasioned by his wrongful act. The case
of HAYNES V. HAEWOOD [1935] 1 K.B. 146
 Under this case, the Defendant negligently left
horses and van unattended in the street. A
small boy threw a stone at them which caused
them to bolt. A policeman tried to stop them
and was injured. It was held that he could
recover damages.
 Itis usually posited that the most
difficult task that a claimant faces in a
negligence action is likely to be proving
that the Defendant was negligent.

 Thus, the primary principle in proving


negligence is that they who affirm must
prove beyond a balance of probability.
 What is Res Ipsa Loquitur?
 “the thing speaks for itself!”
 What are the three elements that
prove the maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur?
a. The thing causing the damage was
under the exclusive control of the
defendant
‘The occurrence of the act should clearly
point to negligence on the part of the
Defendant and to no one else!’
 The case in point is that of GEE V.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY [1873] LR 8 QB
161
 In this case, the Plaintiff leaned against the door of
a train shortly before it left the station. The door
opened and the plaintiff fell out. As the door had
recently been under the control of the Defendants',
there was evidence of negligence on their part.
 The act or omission must be of the sort that
does not happen in the absence of negligence
 Again, negligence must be evident to satisfy
this requirement. Consider the case of
SCOTT V. LONDON AND ST.
KATHERINE’S DOCK CO. (Falling of
bags of sugar!)
 C. There must be no explanation for the
negligent action.

 Theprinciple is not available where there is an


explanation to be made i.e. in an accident!

 See
the case of BARKWAY V. SOUTH
WALES TRANSPORT CO. LTD [1950] 1
ALL ER 392
 Under the BARKWAY case (consider the
falling of sugar bags)
 The position of the law is that a Plaintiff is not
entitled to compensation if the damage suffered is
in the eyes of the law is too remote.
 The Test APPLIED by the courts is that
consequences are too remote if a REASONABLE
MAN WOULD NOT HAVE FORSEEN THEM
 See the case of OVERSEAS TANKSHIP (U.K)
LTD V. MORTS DOCK & ENGINEERING
CO. LTD [1961] A.C. 388- The facts are that…
 Owing to the servants’ negligence, furnace oil
escaped from the defendant’s vessel, floated on
water and was carried by wind and tide near the
wharf. It was ignited by a piece of smouldering
cotton waste and the wharf was severely damaged
by fire. It was held that the defendants were not
liable for damage to the wharf as they did not
know and could not reasonably be expected to
have known that the furnace oil was capable of
setting a fire when spreading on water
 The precise circumstances need not be foreseeable; but
the defendant will be liable if the consequences are
within the general range which a reasonable man would
foresee. The case of BRADFORD V. ROBINSON
RENTALS LTD [1967] 1 W.L.R.337 is authority. The
brief facts are that…B. was ordered by his employers to
make a long journey in an unheated van in a period of
severe cold. He suffered frost bite as a result. It was
held that his employers were liable, even though frost-
bite was an unusual condition, as some injury from cold
was foreseeable.
 Note:Damage which is intended is never too
remote, and there is an inference that a man
intends the natural and necessary
consequences of his conduct.
Novus Actus interveniens;
Volenti non fit injuria; and
Contributory negligence
 The claimant voluntarily agrees to undertake the
legal risk of harm at his own expense!
 What are some of the features that qualifies
“Volenti non fit injuria” –
I. the claimant must have acted voluntarily and had
an opportunity to exercise a free choice;
II. The defense can be pleaded where the parties
agree to waive the negligent act. Note the
agreement must not be made under duress,
mistake and or fraud
III.For the defense to succeed, the
claimant must have the knowledge
of the existence of the risk and the
nature of extent
 This is where the claimant's fault has
contributed to their damage and the damages
awarded are reduced in proportion to their
fault.

 For the defense to succeed;


I. The defendant must prove that the claimant
failed to take reasonable care and as a
consequence, that failure caused damage
 II The claimant's conduct must qualify to
fall under the sphere of negligence. This is
considered objectively!

 III furthermore, for the defense to qualify,


the claimant's fault must be legal and factual
cause of the harm suffered
 Questions;
 Additions, subtractions and or qualifications

 arthiske@yahoo.com/ SikeA@zra.otrg.zm

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy