Tort 15 - Causation 1
Once
it has been established that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care
and once it has been found that the defendant has breached that duty of care
either by his actions or by failing to act, the next step in order for a
plaintiff to be successful in a claim of negligence is to establish that the
defendant’s actions or his omissions (failure to act) had caused the plaintiff
to incur some type of property damage, or suffer from some sort of physical
injury, psychiatric illness or nervous shock. The question that needs to be
asked is - would the plaintiff have incurred any damage to his or her property
or would he or she have suffered from any form of physical injury, psychiatric
illness or nervous shock “but for” the defendant’s acts or omissions? If the
answer is no i.e. the plaintiff would not have incurred any type of property
damage or suffered from some form of physical injury, psychiatric illness or
nervous shock “but for” the defendant’s actions or inactions (failure to act or
omissions) then the defendant would be held to be liable.
This
test is called the “but for” test and it was laid down in Barnett v Chelsea
Hospital Management Committee (1969). The plaintiff went to a hospital
complaining of stomach pains and vomiting and was subsequently examined by a
nurse who telephoned the doctor on duty. The doctor after listening to the
nurse instructed her to tell the patient to consult a general practitioner and
the nurse did as she was instructed. The plaintiff went home and died 5 hours
later from arsenic poisoning. His estate sued on the grounds that had the
doctor examined the patient in time, he could have saved the patient and that
his death was the result of the doctor’s negligence.
In
order for the doctor to be liable it must be established that the patient died
as a result of the doctor’s actions or his or her inactions (omissions). If it
can be established that the patient would have died regardless of whether the
doctor acted or failed to act (omission) then the chances are that the doctor
would not be held to be liable.
The
test to establish liability is called the “but for” test i.e. “but for” the
defendant’s actions or inactions (omissions) the plaintiff would not have died.
In
Mahon v Osborne (1939) for example it could be established that the plaintiff would
not have fallen ill and subsequently died “but for” the swab of cotton that was
left in his body.
In
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis (1955) the defendant was a teacher who left a
5-year-old-child that was under her care unsupervised and the child somehow left
the classroom and made his or her way onto a busy road. The child got in the
way of an oncoming lorry and the driver had to swerve to avoid hitting the
child and crashed into a tree and subsequently died as a result. His widow
sued.
The
court held that had it not been for the defendant’s inactions (omissions) or
failure to act in the manner that she was supposed to - there was a duty
imposed on her to not leave a child under her care alone, the plaintiff’s
husband would not have died. The defendant’s employers were held to be liable.
In
Froom v Butcher (1975) the plaintiff was involved in a car accident that was
caused by the defendant’s negligence. While the defendant was held liable, the
claimant was not wearing her seat belt at the time of the accident. The law
that made the wearing of seatbelts mandatory only came into force on the 31st
of January 1983 - prior to that it was recommended that passengers in a car
wore seatbelts. Fitting of seatbelt anchorage points in all new cars was made
compulsory in 1967. Therefore, it is possible to surmise that the government
was quite serious about making the public aware of the benefits of wearing
seatbelts and it was only a matter of time before the law came into effect.
It
was held that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the defendant’s
negligence but the plaintiff also had a duty to take the necessary precautions
to mitigate or reduce any injury he or she may incur by taking recommended
precautionary steps and therefore the damages that the plaintiff received was
reduced in proportion to the amount that he or she was deemed to have
contributed to his or her own injury.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward and Kathiresan Ramachanderam
Comments
Post a Comment