ACCA LW ^Eng Syllabus B. The Law Of Obligations - Explain The Meaning Of Causality And Remoteness Of Damage - Notes ^{4 / 5}

So far we have said that you can only be liable for Negligence if the following can be proved:

1) You owed a duty of care
2) You breached that duty
3) The breach CAUSED harm
4) Losses suffered were NOT too REMOTE

We have looked at 1 and 2 in detail previously so this section looks at 3 and 4

Causation can be proved in 2 ways

1. Causation in Fact

   The claimant must prove that 'but for' the defendant's actions they would not have suffered the damage Barnett v Chelsea

   So let's say you go to a doctor because you feel very unwell. He sends you home saying nothing is wrong. 

   The next day you die! Can the doctor be sued?

   Normally yes! As he breached his duty - however it is found out you died from something that would killed you no matter what the doctor did - so therefore - his actions did not cause the harm

   You can't say "BUT FOR the doctor I would have lived"

2. Causation in Law

   Here you must prove a direct (no break) in the chain of causation

   If an act breaks this direct chain between act and harm it is called  a 'novus actus interveniens'. 

   These are unforeseen events that break the link between the defendant's tort and the eventual harm suffered and include:

   1. A natural event – earthquakes, floods fires etc

   2. Act of a third party – Knightly v Johns

   3. Act of the claimant – McKew v Holland

Finally you must prove that your losses suffered were not too remote

The losses must have been 'reasonably foreseeable' The Wagon Mound

How to prove the losses were too remote

1. Vicarious Liability

   An employee can claim under the law of vicarious liability that it is their employer who is liable for their own negligence not themselves personally - if they were following their Employers instructions Limpus v London General Omnibus Co

2. 'Volenti non fit injuria'

   Here there's a known risk eg sustaining a broken nose during a licensed boxing match. So claiming for this is not allowed

   For volenti to apply the claimant must have been:

   (1) fully aware of the risks
   (2) voluntarily consented (either expressly or by implication)

3. Contributory Negligence

   This normally reduces damages only (between 10-75%) 

   Here the defendant proves that the claimant contributed to their injury in some way   Fitzgerald v Lane & Patel

4. The Limitation Act 1980

   This Act states that claims in tort should be brought to court within six years from the date of negligence. 

   For personal injury claims this has been reduced to three years