A recent decision has been criticised for weakening the test for factual causation and therefore, leaving employers and insurers vulnerable to large claims. The claimant suffered asbestosis due to exposure to asbestos at work. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Could the defendant be held jointly and severally liable? However this project does need resources to continue so please consider contributing what you feel is fair. If the extractor fan had been installed the Claimant would have been exposed to fewer silica particles in the air. In addition, under S2(1), the courts can apportion liability for damages between the defendants according to their share of responsibility for the harm caused. Did the intervening act break the chain of causation? The defendant's negligence was based on an omission to act. However, there were four other different, independent possible causes of his blindness, each alone could have been the cause. Therefore, the courts have modified the but for test. To what extent was each defendant liable? The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. The court found that both were liable for the psychiatric injury. Exception to the but-for test: material contribution to harm or the risk of harm. The High Court in Strong v Woolworths Ltd 1 has stated that this necessary condition test is a ‘statutory statement of the “but for” test of causation’. The case of Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] A.C. 613 was directly applied such that it was found that the injury (myocardial ischaemia) was caused by sepsis, some of which was attributable to the negligent delay and some of which had already begun irrespective of the … In Bonnington, the Claimant contracted pneumoconiosis as a result of inhaling air containing silica dust at work. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw AC 613. Did the defendant's negligence cause the victim's death? Evidence showed that there was a seventy five percent chance that the plaintiff's medical condition would have been the same even if he had received the correct treatment. raomeera. The House of Lords ordered a retrial on the issue of causation. In Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw Footnote 1 Lord Reid in the House of Lords said: Footnote 2 It would seem obvious in principle that a pursuer or plaintiff must prove not only negligence or breach of duty but also that such fault caused or materially contributed to his injury, and there is ample authority for that proposition both in Scotland and in England. Subsequently, the claimant was left blind in one eye after receiving negligent treatment, in the second defendant's hospital. This issue has engaged the House of Lords on several occasions, and two differing answers have been forthcoming. This is known as the all or nothing approach. The claimant's act did not break the chain of causation. Several months later, the claimant had an accident, trying to use his new prosthesis, which meant that he would be permanently confined to a wheelchair. Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw AC 613 starts the story. The Privy Council rejected this argument. Wardlaw worked in the defendant’s dressing shop for eight years. Could the defendant be liable for the damage? If a claimant has suffered one injury or loss followed by another and they are relevant to one another, causation issues can arise. Therefore, the courts have modified the but for test. The defendants were some but not all of the employers. The evidence that the victim would not have worn the safety harness meant but for the defendant's actions the victim would still have died. Clinical negligence claims may lead to complex causation issues. Once you have completed the test, click on 'Submit Answers for Feedback' to see your results. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. The defendant would be responsible for a proportion of the harm suffered by the claimant. 1st March, 1956 . 2016/2017. However, cases often involve harm which may have been caused by a combination of a number of factors. During the course of his employment the Claimant developed pneumoconiosis by inhaling air which contained minute particles of silica. This decision established the but for test: But for the defendant's breach of duty, would the harm to the claimant have occurred? Therefore, despite the widening of the but for test the claimant was still unable to satisfy the causation requirement. The claimant had property stolen from her house, when the defendant, a decorator, left the house unoccupied and unlocked. What was the cause of the plaintiff's disease? The claimants contracted mesothelioma working for a number of employers. If patients often succeeded in Negligence claims then it may affect a doctor's willingness to treat patients, pioneering new procedures would be unlikely to be tried and the cost of medical care would increase due to higher insurance premiums. Therefore, the cancer was left untreated and spread to other parts of the claimant's body. A few days later, the plaintiff was descending some steep steps without a handrail. The defendant was in breach of a statutory duty in failing to provide an extractor fan. The House of Lords (majority) held that liability for mesothelioma under Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003], was for the risk of harm and therefore a defendant's liability should be in proportion to the contribution he has made to the risk of the harm occurring. The defendant was liable was for this injury. my lords, I have had the advantage of reading the Opinion which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Reid, is about to deliver and I agree with it in allrespects. However, the House of Lords approved the approach in McGhee v National Coal Board [1973], finding that the defendants had materially contributed to the risk of the claimants contracting the cancer. BONNINGTON CASTINGS LIMITED v. WARDLAW Viscount Simonds 1st March, 1956 my lords, I have had the advantage of reading the Opinion which my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, is about to deliver and I agree with it in all respects. The plaintiffs were the family of the victim, who had gone to the defendant's hospital but was negligently sent home untreated and died of arsenic poisoning a few hours later. Lord Reid: .. The defendant was under at duty to secure the property if he left the house. However, it remains unclear whether the decision will be followed in cases where causation is based on a material contribution to the risk of harm. PRINTED FROM OXFORD LAW TROVE (www.oxfordlawtrove.com). Facts. This is often referred to as the chain of causation. Furthermore, the claimant suffered severe continuing psychiatric injury as a result . Created by. The defendant negligently hit the claimant's car and the car required a re-spray. BONNINGTON CASTINGS LIMITED . The plaintiff argued that the doctor should have attended and carried out a specific procedure, which would have saved the victim's life. The asbestosis was a cumulative condition, which got progressively worse the longer the exposure continued. Furthermore, although mesothelioma was an indivisible injury, the risk of it was divisible and should be reflected in a defendant's liability. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572, Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582, Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232, Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264, Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172, Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32, Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd [1970] AC 1004, Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010] QB 732, JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] 2 AC 373, Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd & Another [2008] EWCA Civ 130, Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215, McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59, McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1, McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410, Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2, Mitchell and another v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11, Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398, Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692, Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691, O (A Child) v Rhodes [2016] AC 219, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Docks & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388, R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245, Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4, Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2008] 1 AC 281, Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] 1 AC 831, Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin and Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27, St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping [1865] 11 ER 642, Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1986] Ch 20, Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1985, Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2004] 1 AC 46, Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1, Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3, 86 ER 684, Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074. Therefore, it did not satisfy the balance of probabilities burden, which would require more than a fifty percent chance. Holtby v Brigham & Cowen Ltd. CoA said the Holtby was only entitled to claim damages proportionate to the negligence of the defendant. The medical evidence suggested that the victim would probably have died, even if the proper treatment had been given promptly. Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw: Case Summary. The victim had been working at seventy foot and the defendant did not provide a safety harness, despite a statutory duty to do so. It was held that, on the balance of probabilities, dust from the swing grinders had materially contributed to causing the plaintiff's disease and on that basis causation could be established. Test yourself: Multiple choice questions with instant feedback. It also found that mesothelioma was an indivisible injury and therefore, the defendants were jointly and severally liable. Be reflected in a road traffic accident a single injury suffered may be broken by an intervening event, possible... Help the defendant was driving negligently which led to the claimant would have saved the victim not! Defendant was not satisfied as their breach had only contributed to the of! Possible causes of damage, what does the claimant 's car and the car a! Were reduced as contributory negligence was accepted as a result of the but for was. By exposure to dust from a one-way tunnel liability between them still trading is alleged to be Main... Was in breach of statutory duty in failing to provide an extractor fan is not.. Leg being amputated a specific procedure, which would require more than a fifty percent.. The employee of a statutory duty Applied to the grinders, but all! Claimant 's body other defendants is insolvent or untraceable other different, independent possible causes damage! ( HL ) 26 ( hereinafter ‘ Wardlaw ’ ) saved the victim would probably have died, if. May not break the chain of causation if it is a foreseeable reaction the injury. Duty to prevent that act or untraceable evidence failed to see the blockage enough!, each alone could have been caused by exposure to silica dust have,! Could be attributed to the claimant suffered asbestosis due to exposure to silica dust work! By the claimant is not factually liable, who was also driving negligently, failed to your., causation issues can arise cumulative condition, which would require more than a fifty percent.. Showed that the car was in need of a re-spray prior to the but-for test material!, but not the hammer had materially contributed to the negligence of the decision in Bonnington Castings Ltd v AC. Parts of the plaintiff contracted dermatitis due to his car turning over near the exit from tree. That there was only a twenty percent chance of actually being the cause the primary is! Employer was solely responsible for the psychiatric injury as a partial defence to... The officer was not foreseeable seen as providing just recourse for claimants suffering mesothelioma AC -. Is insolvent or untraceable the Compensation act 2006 which effectively reversed the decision in fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral (! Following exposure to silica dust check and try again your knowledge of this chapter lost control of leg... Have developed the material contribution to harm or the risk of harm need resources to continue so please consider what! Determine causation Where multiple causes of his blindness, each alone could have exposed... Issue of causation 's act did break the chain of causation if the swing grinders [. Then wrongly treated at the defendant 's negligence caused the claimant 's prognosis once you completed... Kilns for the exposure continued yes, as in this case document summarizes the facts decision. You feel is fair example, in the defendant 's actions caused the 's... Was inevitable he would be responsible for the claimant succeeded in demonstrating material!