Causation in negligence - Legal causation: acts of God, third parties, and the claimant

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Causation is vital in proving negligence, linking a defendant's breach of duty to the claimant's harm. Legal causation explores the challenges posed by intervening factors such as acts of God, actions by third parties, and the claimant's own behavior. A detailed comprehension of these elements is essential for excelling in the SQE1 FLK1 exam, where such scenarios often appear.

Factual Causation: The 'But For' Test

Before exploring legal causation, factual causation must be established using the 'but for' test. This principle asks: "But for the defendant's negligence, would the damage have occurred?" While straightforward, it requires further analysis to address complex situations.

Example

In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428, the hospital was negligent, but the patient would have died regardless, breaking the causal chain.

Legal Causation: Important Intervening Factors

Acts of God

Acts of God are extraordinary natural events like floods or earthquakes that occur independently of human action, potentially severing the causal link if unforeseeable.

Legal Principles

  • Unpredictability: The event must be so unexpected that no reasonable person could foresee it.
  • No Aggravation: The defendant's actions should not have increased the natural event's impact.

Case Law Analysis

In Nichols v Marshland (1875) LR 10 Ex 255, unusual rainfall caused lakes to overflow onto the claimant's property. The court ruled it an act of God, highlighting the need to prove the event's unpredictability.

Acts of Third Parties

Third-party interventions can disrupt the causation analysis, potentially severing the link between defendant negligence and claimant harm.

Legal Principles

  • Foreseeability: If foreseeable as a result of the defendant's negligence, the link may remain.
  • Novus Actus Interveniens: An unforeseeable act by a third party may break the chain.

Case Law Analysis

In Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004, the escape and subsequent damage by young offenders were foreseeable, maintaining the causal link.

Acts of the Claimant

The claimant's actions after the defendant's negligence can influence the causal chain and liability extent.

Legal Principles

  • Reasonableness: Reasonable actions by the claimant in response to negligence don’t break the chain.
  • Unreasonable Actions: If the claimant's actions worsen their situation unreasonably, liability might be reduced.

Case Law Analysis

In McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621, the claimant's decision to descend a staircase without help, despite prior injury, broke the chain of causation.

Proximate Cause and Remoteness

Proximate Cause

Proximate cause, also called legal cause, helps determine if the defendant's actions are closely enough connected to the harm to impose liability.

Legal Principles

  • Direct Consequences: Harm resulting directly from negligence is proximate.
  • Foreseeability: Harm must be a foreseeable result of the defendant's actions.

Case Law Analysis

In Scott v Shepherd (1773) 2 W Bl 892, the act of throwing a squib was the proximate cause of injury, despite subsequent actions by others.

Remoteness of Damage

Remoteness limits a defendant's liability by excluding consequences deemed too distant from the negligent act.

Legal Principles

  • Foreseeability: The damage type must be foreseeable, as in The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388.
  • Liability Extent: Defendants are responsible for the full extent of foreseeable damage, even if its manner or degree was unexpected, as in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837.

Case Law Analysis

In Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518, only foreseeable injury from splashing, not unexpected explosions, was recognized.

Practical Application and Exam Relevance

For success in the SQE1 FLK1 exam, candidates should:

  1. Use the 'but for' test to establish factual causation.
  2. Examine intervening factors' impact on the causal chain.
  3. Evaluate foreseeability and proximity in complex scenarios.
  4. Determine damage remoteness to assess liability extent.

Exam-Focused Case Study

Consider this scenario:

A construction company leaves bricks unsecured. An unusual wind blows them onto the pavement, and a distracted passerby trips, falling into traffic.

In an exam:

  1. Establish factual causation with the 'but for' test.
  2. Assess the wind's effect as a potential act of God on legal causation.
  3. Evaluate the passerby's contributory negligence and the driver's role as possible breaks in the chain.
  4. Judge the foreseeability and remoteness of harm related to the company's negligence.

Conclusion

Understanding legal causation is essential for success in the SQE1 FLK1 exam and future practice. Key takeaways include:

  1. The 'but for' test confirms factual causation but might be too broad.
  2. Unforeseeable acts of God, third-party actions, and claimant behavior may break the causal chain.
  3. Proximate cause connects harm to negligence.
  4. Remoteness restricts liability to foreseeable harm.
  5. Applying these principles demands careful analysis of each case’s circumstances.

Understanding these concepts allows candidates to effectively tackle complex negligence scenarios, displaying the legal reasoning standard expected in the SQE1 FLK1 examination.