Tort Law: Negligence (Factual Causation)

Reviewed by Editorial Team
The ProProfs editorial team is comprised of experienced subject matter experts. They've collectively created over 10,000 quizzes and lessons, serving over 100 million users. Our team includes in-house content moderators and subject matter experts, as well as a global network of rigorously trained contributors. All adhere to our comprehensive editorial guidelines, ensuring the delivery of high-quality content.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Chriscullen
C
Chriscullen
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 12 | Total Attempts: 2,636
| Attempts: 189
SettingsSettings
Please wait...
  • 1/13 Questions

    Winfield and Jolowicz: Negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal duty to take care which ________ damage to the claimant.

Please wait...
About This Quiz

This will cover Factual causation as taught in the lectures by Kartina.

Negligence Quizzes & Trivia

Quiz Preview

  • 2. 

    There are SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES to consider when establishing causation. 1) MULTIPLE CAUSES   a) COMPETING POTENTIAL CAUSES   b) CUMULATIVE CAUSES 2) MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS In this case a baby was born prematurely, and because of one of several potential causes; over exposure to oxygen, a catheter being fitted to his vein instead of his artery and other causes, he developed RLF (an uncurable eye condition). Because no one cause could be proven to have caused the condition over 51% - no causation.

    • Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

    • Bonnington v Wardlaw Castings

    • Hotson v Berkshire Area Health Authority

    • Gregg v Scott

    Correct Answer
    A. Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority. In this case, the baby developed RLF, an uncurable eye condition, due to several potential causes. However, no single cause could be proven to have caused the condition over 51%. This case highlights the need for establishing causation in situations with multiple potential causes, where it is necessary to prove that one cause was more likely than the others to have caused the harm.

    Rate this question:

  • 3. 

    In proving CAUSATION, we are looking for a CAUSAL LINK between the Breach and the Injury. We must establish both FACTUAL and LEGAL CAUSATION. This case established that the patient would have still died from arsonic poisening regardless of the whether the doctor properly examined him or not. So IN FACT, BUT FOR the doctors breach, the patient would have still died. If there was evidence that, had the doctor examined him correcly then he would have been saved, then factual causation may have been established.

    • McWilliams v NHS Trusts Ltd

    • Barnett v Kensington

    • Hotson v Berkshire Area Health Authority

    • Gregg v Scott

    Correct Answer
    A. Barnett v Kensington
    Explanation
    The case of Barnett v Kensington is the correct answer because it established the concept of "but for" causation. In this case, it was determined that even if the doctor had properly examined the patient, the patient would have still died from arsenic poisoning. This means that the doctor's breach of duty did not directly cause the patient's death, as the outcome would have been the same regardless. Therefore, the factual causation was not established in this case.

    Rate this question:

  • 4. 

    In this case, the risk of contracting dermatitis from brick dust accumulated when there was an absense of washing facilities... So the original cause was brick dust... The cause became cumulative by the breach (not providing the washing facilities) as the risk of contracting dermatitis was highetened enough to make it a material contribution.

    • Wilshire v EAHA

    • Shaw v Balfour Beattie

    • McGhee v National Coal Board

    • Davis v United Utilities

    Correct Answer
    A. McGhee v National Coal Board
    Explanation
    The answer is McGhee v National Coal Board. In this case, the claimant worked in a brick kiln where he was exposed to brick dust. The employer failed to provide washing facilities, which increased the risk of contracting dermatitis. The court held that the employer's breach of duty in not providing washing facilities was a material contribution to the claimant's condition. This case established the principle of cumulative causation, where the defendant's breach of duty need not be the sole cause of the harm, but only a material contribution to it.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    This ACT defines causation in relation to ASBESTOS related injuries as was defined in the Fairchild case - making it enforceable by statute. This is, that the claimant need only claim against one employer. The decision in the BARKER was therefore overturned and the claimant can now recover ALL THE COSTS from one employer - regardless of whether any of the other employers are insolvent.

    • Compensation Act 2006 s. 3

    • Asbestos Control Act 1986 s. 3

    • Asbestos Related Injuries Act 2000 s. 3

    • Asbestos Compensation Act 2000 s. 3

    Correct Answer
    A. Compensation Act 2006 s. 3
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Compensation Act 2006 s. 3. This act defines causation in relation to asbestos-related injuries, following the precedent set in the Fairchild case. It states that the claimant only needs to make a claim against one employer, allowing them to recover all costs from that employer, regardless of the solvency of other employers. This overturns the decision in the Barker case and provides a clear legal framework for asbestos-related injury claims.

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

    CAUSATION in negligence is decided on a BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES, so there must be a 51% chance that the breach caused the injury. In this case, a child injured his hip as he fell off a tree. There was a 25% chance that had he been correcly diagnosed immediately, he would his paralysis woul have been prevented. As the chance was below 51% his claim failed and the breach had therefore not caused his paralysis.

    • Scott v NHS Trust PLC

    • McWilliams v Sir William Arrol

    • Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea Management Committee

    • Hotson v Berkshire Area Health Authority

    Correct Answer
    A. Hotson v Berkshire Area Health Authority
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Hotson v Berkshire Area Health Authority. This case is relevant because it demonstrates the principle that causation in negligence is decided on a balance of probabilities. In this case, the claimant's paralysis was caused by a delay in diagnosis. However, there was only a 25% chance that the correct diagnosis would have prevented the paralysis. Since this chance was below the required 51%, the claimant's claim failed and it was determined that the breach of duty did not cause the paralysis.

    Rate this question:

  • 7. 

    There are SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES to consider when establishing causation. 1) MULTIPLE CAUSES 2) MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS a) UNJUST RESULTS b) SUPERVENING EVENTS In this case, the claimant had been in a car accident and as a result of his injuries he had to change his job. In his new job, his leg was shot. The driver of the car was found to have caused the second injury (although it seems indirectly) so the claimant would not lose out on damages.

    • Gray v Thames

    • Baker v Willoughby

    • Bolam v Friern

    • The Wagon Mound (No 1)

    Correct Answer
    A. Baker v Willoughby
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Baker v Willoughby. In this case, the claimant suffered injuries in a car accident and had to change his job as a result. Later, in his new job, his leg was shot. The driver of the car was found to have caused the second injury, even though it was indirectly. This case is relevant because it demonstrates how multiple causes and multiple defendants can be considered in establishing causation, and how the claimant would not lose out on damages due to these special circumstances.

    Rate this question:

  • 8. 

    There are SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES to consider when establishing causation. 1) MULTIPLE CAUSES 2) MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS   a) UNJUST RESULTS   b) SUPERVENING CAUSES In this case, the claimant suffered from an asbestos related injury. Asbestos related diseases are caused by one "offending" fibre of asbestos, not from prolonged exposure, and can affect the person years or decades after the expsosure. It was therefore impossible to decide which workplace was responsible for the "offending fibre." The HOL established  that the claimant need only sue one company for the injuries - it was then this companies responsibility to sue any other employers accordingly if necessary.

    • Jobling v Associated Dairies

    • Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services

    • Baker v Willoughby Ltd

    • Smith v Littlewoods Ltd

    Correct Answer
    A. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services
    Explanation
    In the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services, the claimant suffered from an asbestos-related injury. Asbestos-related diseases are caused by one "offending" fiber of asbestos, not from prolonged exposure. In this case, it was impossible to determine which workplace was responsible for the specific fiber that caused the injury. The House of Lords established that the claimant only needed to sue one company for the injuries, and it would be the responsibility of that company to sue any other employers if necessary. This ruling was made to address the special circumstance of multiple causes in establishing causation in asbestos-related cases.

    Rate this question:

  • 9. 

    There are SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES to consider when establishing causation. 1) MULTIPLE CAUSES   a) COMPETING POTENTIAL CAUSES   b) CUMULATIVE CAUSES 2) MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS In this case, a worker suffered lung desease from prolonged exposure to silica dust. It could not be established whether the innocent dust caused the lung desease or the illegal dust. The prolonged exposure constituted cumulative causes (i.e. cumulative exposure to silica dust)

    • Bonnington v Wardlaw Casting

    • Wilshire v EAHA

    • Fairchild v GFS

    • Barker v Corus UK

    Correct Answer
    A. Bonnington v Wardlaw Casting
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Bonnington v Wardlaw Casting. In this case, the worker suffered lung disease due to prolonged exposure to silica dust. The court could not determine whether the innocent dust or the illegal dust caused the disease. However, the prolonged exposure to silica dust was considered a cumulative cause, meaning that the cumulative exposure to the dust contributed to the development of the disease.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

    The BAKER case seemed a little unfair on the first defendant - being liable for somebody elses actions just because you technically caused them to change their job, where a worse act occurred. This case made the first defendant only liable up until the time of the second accident... Unless the first accident superceded the the second accident (i.e. was more serious than...)

    • Jobling v Associated Dairies (ASDA)

    • Gray v Thames

    • Wagon Mound (No 1)

    • Smith v Leech Brain

    Correct Answer
    A. Jobling v Associated Dairies (ASDA)
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Jobling v Associated Dairies (ASDA). This case is relevant because it deals with the issue of liability for somebody else's actions. In Jobling v Associated Dairies (ASDA), the defendant was held liable for the actions of another employee because they caused the employee to change their job, which ultimately led to the accident. However, the defendant was only held liable up until the time of the second accident, unless the first accident was more serious than the second accident. This case highlights the concept of causation and the limits of liability in certain circumstances.

    Rate this question:

  • 11. 

    Again, on the balance of probabilities issue, a delay in diagnosis reduced the chance of a cure to 25% from 42%. The doctor was not negligent because the chance of a cure was below 51%

    • Gregg v Scott

    • McGhee v NCB

    • Wilshire v Essex Area Health Authority

    • Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Service

    Correct Answer
    A. Gregg v Scott
    Explanation
    In the case of Gregg v Scott, the explanation for the given correct answer is that the doctor was not considered negligent because the chance of a cure was below 51%. This means that even if there was a delay in diagnosis, the doctor cannot be held responsible for the reduced chance of a cure. The court determined that the doctor's actions did not fall below the standard of care expected in the medical profession, as the chances of a cure were already low. Therefore, the doctor cannot be held liable for any negligence in this case.

    Rate this question:

  • 12. 

    This case followed the general principle laid out in FAIRCHILD, that the claimant only has to recover the whole damages from just one defendant for asbestos related injuries. However, one of the claimants previous employers was now insolvent. This effected the amount of recoverable compensation for the claimant... And they work it out like this... EMPLOYER | TIME EMPLOYED | BANKRUPT? | PROPORTION OF COMP.     A            |         5 years        |        N            |            25%     B            |         5 years        |        Y            |            0%     C            |         5 years        |        N            |            25%     D            |         5 years        |        N            |            25% ----------------------------------------------------- TOTAL RECOVERABLE                                              75% In other words, you can't recover compensation from a bankrupt company - so it's unfair for a company to pay out when they will not be able to recover the costs. The claimant loses out.

    • Barker v Corus

    • Fairchild v Glenhaven

    • Baker v Willoughby

    • Jobling v Associated Dairies

    Correct Answer
    A. Barker v Corus
    Explanation
    This case follows the general principle laid out in FAIRCHILD, which states that a claimant only needs to recover the full damages from one defendant for asbestos-related injuries. However, in this scenario, one of the claimant's previous employers is insolvent, affecting the amount of recoverable compensation. The table provided shows the proportion of compensation that can be recovered from each employer, with the bankrupt employer contributing nothing. This highlights the unfairness of expecting a company to pay out when they cannot recover the costs, ultimately resulting in the claimant losing out. This case is similar to Barker v Corus, which dealt with similar issues regarding asbestos-related injuries.

    Rate this question:

  • 13. 

    In this case, FACTUAL CAUSATION derived from a steel-worker expressing that he would not wear a harness when climbing scaffolding - so the company did not provide him with one. He fell to his death. There was no FACTUAL CAUSATION as But for the company providing a harness, the worker still wouldn't have worn it and would have still fallen to his death as a result.

    • McWilliams v Sir William Arrol

    • Gregg v Scott

    • Davis v United Utilities

    • Shaw v Balfour Beattie

    Correct Answer
    A. McWilliams v Sir William Arrol
    Explanation
    The explanation for the given correct answer is that in the case of McWilliams v Sir William Arrol, the steel-worker expressed that he would not wear a harness when climbing scaffolding. Based on this statement, the company did not provide him with a harness. However, even if the company had provided him with a harness, the worker still would not have worn it. Therefore, the lack of factual causation exists because even if the company had taken the action of providing a harness, it would not have prevented the worker from falling to his death.

    Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 21, 2023 +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

  • Current Version
  • Mar 21, 2023
    Quiz Edited by
    ProProfs Editorial Team
  • May 10, 2012
    Quiz Created by
    Chriscullen
Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.