Complex issues of causation and contribution may arise in exposure cases, where a number of defendant employers may have made a material contribution to the personal injury/condition. In other cases, the “original” wrongdoer may have foreseen the intervening act. There may also be overlap with the issues of liability itself, as the breach of duty is based on foresight and proximity. The tort law causation module contains two chapters: causation, and intervening ants and remoteness. In the latter instance, the original loss is not reduced. CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS Daniel Neill and James Bentley March 2018. extremely far off or slight. The intervener’s action will commonly be intentional or reckless, involving a conscious risk. Causation refers to the enquiry as to whether the defendant's conduct (or omission) caused the harm or damage.Causation must be established in all result crimes. The fact that a person acts deliberately or intentionally, causing injury to himself and/or another, does not necessarily break the chain of causation if the deliberate act is affected or rendered more dangerous by prior negligence on the part of the defendant. Ultimately, questions of causation may be determined by whether the loss of damage is more consistent with the defendant’s negligence than any other cause. -> applied causation at two levels: defendant's negligence (cause 1), plaintiff's own act (cause 2); used cause 1 to find no NAI, prima facie case, but used cause 2 to find illegality based on public policy, Solution 1: continuing liability, no gap in compensation. Evidence may be so remote from the issues in a trial that it will not be allowed as "immaterial." The action of a third-party may be a reflex or be inevitable, such as where the third-party is put in a dilemma and takes emergency action accordingly, by reason of the something caused by the defendant’s negligence. A wrongdoer is liable for loss or damage of a kind, that a reasonable man would have foreseen at the time of the act. There may be an overlap between causation and remoteness. The question of whether the defendant’s acts or omissions have caused the claimant’s loss of damage, in the legal sense, is a matter of both fact and legal policy. Tests for cause in law encompass a remoteness test (which involves establishing whether the damage that occurred was foreseeable to … The claimant’s loss may be the direct and natural consequence of the defendant’s fault or breach of duty, notwithstanding the intervention of human conduct whether by the claimant or a third-party. Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents. The question may be difficult and controversial in some cases, such as in Hanrahan v Merck Sharpe and Dohme, where the question arose as to whether the emissions from the defendant’s plant had caused damage to the claimant’s health and farm stock. Copyright © 2018 McMahon Legal, All Rights Reserved, http://mcmahonsolicitors.ie/causation-remoteness-issues">. “reckless”, “wholly unreasonable”, “highly culpable”, or deliberate. View Legal causation from RDL 3003H at University of Cape Town. In this context, the loss of chance refers to the possibility that had the relevant work or service not been negligent there would have been a better chance / higher probability of an outcome favourable to the claimant. The defendant’s negligence may be a material cause of the accident. death resulting from negligence should be subject to a single legal regime regardless of whether they are brought in contract, tort, under a statute, or under any other cause of action. Once it has been shown that a defendant owed the claimant a duty to take care and was in breach of that duty, liability can still be avoided if it can be shown that the breach did not cause the damage, or that the damage was too remote a consequence of the breach. Where injuries are sustained in an accident caused by the defendant’s negligence in circumstances where it later emerges that the defendant was suffering from a debilitating unconnected illness, the defendant is liable to pay reduced damages, because the supervening event has not been caused by the further wrongdoing. In circumstances where it could not be proved, on the balance of probabilities that the outcome would be worse or better, the House of Lords confirmed the requirement for proof of legal causation in law. Causation and remoteness; Breach of duty; Negligence – psychiatric harm; Defamation Q&A; Negligence – psychiatric harm Q&A; £15.00 – Add to Cart Checkout. Police inspector on scene ordered the plaintiff and another officer on motorcycles to ride back against traffic and close the entrance. Many incidents and accident occur as a result of multiple causes, attributable to several people. A rescue may be reasonably foreseeable. In some professional negligence claims, recovery for the loss of chance may be allowed. Where loss or damage has been caused by the defendant but it is too far removed from the negligence or other civil wrongs to be the subject of compensation, it is said to be too remote. Traditionally, it has been said that there is liability for negligence where there is a breach of duty causing damage and the damage is not remote.However, these terms are to some extent labels. The defendant may be under a duty to take care to protect the claimant from the deliberate act, reckless or negligence of a third-party. The same principles apply to damage to property and economic loss. This does not break the chain of legal causation, even though the action taken by the third, may have caused the loss in a literal sense. Factual Causation. This chapter discusses the concepts of causation and remoteness of damage. If those actions are intended, almost inevitable or likely, the defendant is deemed the cause. a negligent defendant whose situation invites rescue is liable for the, a defendant who negligently causes a motor accident may also be liable to a person who, while stopping to assist at the scene, is harmed by another negligent motorist, very likely to happen a result of breach of duty, "glaringly obvious" or "manifest and obvious" risk, criticised "very likely test" (contrary to Wagon Mound No 2, etc), FACTS: LBC negligently fixes sewers, flooding leading to cracking in foundation of house; squatters also caused damage to house, claimed for damage caused by squatters as well HELD: no, "Mr Corr’s suicide was not a voluntary, informed decision taken by him as an adult of sound mind making and giving effect to a personal decision about his future. The test of legal cause is applicable both to the “threshold” situation in which the court is trying to establish whether the … Legal causation is different from factual causation which raises the question whether the damage resulted from the breach of contract or duty. Tort Law Negligence –Causation & Remoteness © The Law Bank Tort General principles –Causation and Remoteness 1 In negligence, the test of causation not only requires that the defendant was the cause in fact, but also requires that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant was not too remote. This has reduced the need for courts to categorise one person or other as having caused the loss or damage. 7.2 This Term of Reference has been formulated around the elements of the tort of negligence, namely duty of care, breach of duty (that is, standard of care), causation and remoteness of damage. Content in this section of the website is relevant as of August 2018. Provided that the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, it is not necessary that the manner in which it is caused is foreseeable. In professional negligence cases which turn on what the claimant would have done, had the there been no negligence and the correct advice had been given, causation requires the claimant to prove on the balance of probabilities, that he would have acted differently. Causation covers causation in fact as adapted by further principles which place limits on what is characterised as cause at law, legal causation. Indeed, the defendant is likely to be liable also, to the rescuer. Legal Causation/Remoteness study guide by niklaus_wietlisbach includes 12 questions covering vocabulary, terms and more. Accordingly, once factual causation is established, it is necessary … This principle is applicable only where the impossibility of proving that the defendant caused the damage arises out of the existence of another potential causative agent, which operated in a similar way. The courts take a common sense approach. In addition to the requirement for factual causation, the courts apply a  material cause test. It is a question for judgment in the circumstances, as to whether the intervening action is reasonable. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. To establish cause in fact, the claimant must show, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s breach caused their harm. The intervening act may be the predictable act of a third person, such as an attempt to rescue. ), susceptibility to subsidence due to renovations and increased structural loading (Gary Chan). The type of damage must be foreseeable. Assessing remoteness requires an examination of the nature of plaintiffs’ injury and the causal chain between conduct and effect. Accordingly, once factual causation is established, it is necessary … Each has a causative effect. The question of whether the loss is too remote is a matter of law, to the determined by the judge, even in the limited categories of cases where there is a jury. The term remoteness refers to the legal test of causation which is used when determining the types of loss caused by a breach of contract or duty which may be compensated by a damages award. Issues arise regarding the generality of the type of injury. Others occupational injuries appear at once. The defendant must take the plaintiff has he finds him, with his particular vulnerabilities. The evidence called to enable the court to make a just apportionment should be proportionate to the level of loss and damage involved, and the uncertainties which are inherent in making a personal injuries award of damages. The principles of remoteness required that the loss must be such that it was or is deemed to have been, in the contemplation of the parties. Many incidents and events have multiple causes. Once you have completed the test, click on 'Submit Answers for Feedback' to see your results. . The defendant may be responsible for injuries to a rescuer in this case provided that the rescue is reasonably foreseeable. Under the Civil Liability Act, each may be fully liable subject to a right of contribution from other persons who are at fault. Causation (cause-in-fact) 1; Remoteness (cause-in-law) A purely legal concept? REMOTENESS (CAUSATION OF LAW) As well as proving that the defendant’s breach of duty factually caused the damage suffered by the claimant, the claimant must prove that the damage was not too remote from the defendant’s breach. GlossaryRemotenessThe term remoteness refers to the legal test of causation which is used when determining the types of loss caused by a breach of contract or duty which may be compensated by a damages award. Legal causation is different from factual causation which raises the question whether the damage resulted from the breach of contract or duty. A distinction is made between a supervening event which prevents an anticipated loss from occurring and a supervening event which causes a greater loss whether or not of the same kind. Quizlet flashcards, activities and games help you improve your grades. Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation and legal causation.Factual causation is the starting point and consists of applying the 'but for' test. In this case, considerations of foreseeability do not arise. Legal causation is different from factual causation which raises the question whether the damage resulted from the breach of contract or duty. This latter principle of remoteness in a contract claim restricts the level of loss that might be recovered. This would be inappropriate from the perspective of common sense and public policy. Finally any discussion of causation would not be complete without first considering the case of The Wagon Mound in which the Privy Council stressed the importance of reasonable foreseeability as opposed to directness as a basis for determining “remoteness” of damage. Reviews. See the sections on the Civil Liability Act, which provides for a reduction in damages where the claimant or defendants are partly at fault in and have thereby contributed to the loss or damage. The test of remoteness is based on reasonable foreseeability. If the third party’s actions are foreseeable although not necessarily probable, the court will look at carefully at the circumstances and judge whether they break the chain of legal causation. Paul McMahon There are two tests for remoteness: the direct consequence test and the reasonable foreseeability test. was damage by fire reasonably foreseeable even though the possibility was small? Causation may raise difficulties of evidence and proof. The res ipsa loquitur principle may assist the claimant in cases where causation in complex and denied. "the courts should not be eager to find that a claimant had acted so unreasonably as to break the chain of causation... "more readily with personal injury and physical damage claims, rather than... economic loss", unreliable knee previously injured by D, descended staircase, knee buckled, jumped rest of 10 steps and was injured, HELD: further injuries not caused, "a deliberate and informed act intended to exploit a situation created by a defendant did not negative causation where the defendant was in breach of a specific duty imposed by law to guard against that very act", HELD: no NAI, found P contributory negligence, D1 injured P's leg; D2 (armed robber) shot and resulted in P's leg being amputated, encompassing and increasing original injury, should not be applied to commercial disputes; leaves question open to whether applicable for personal-injury claims. Where some new act intervenes between the negligent act and the damage, it may be deemed to have been the cause or sole cause of the damage. Where loss or damage has been caused by the defendant but it is too far removed from the negligence or other civil wrongs to be the subject of compensation, it is said to be too remote. The question of whether the defendant’s acts or omissions have caused the claimant’s loss of damage, in the legal sense, is a matter of both fact and legal policy. The courts take a common sense approach to causation. Introduction • Culpability • Not just a question who is culpable • Also a question of what they are culpable for • Raises questions of causation and remoteness. In effect, it creates a presumption of fault or negligence, that where an event or occurrence is such that as would not normally occur without fault. The issue of causation may be linked with mitigation. Where two parties have caused loss, the courts endeavour to make an apportionment., without denying the claimant relief on the basis that he cannot establish precisely who caused the injury. In the absence of such a limitation, the indefinite and open-ended consequences of a breach of duty/wrong would be the subject of compensation. general type of damage (burning) foreseeable, but type of damage was defined more specifically, i.e. adj., adv. It does not follow that each such person may be deemed to have caused the accident from a legal perspective, for the purpose of liability in negligence. The eggshell rule applies in addition to requirement of foreseeability. Where something happens in the normal course of things that can be expected, the original wrongdoer will usually remain liable. D1 injured P decreasing earning capacity by 50%; E2 (myelopathy) reduced earning capacity to zero, damages limited by supervening condition would have occurred naturally as part of the "vicissitudes of life", unsatisfactory distinction between tortious and natural events since both occurred randomly, negligent discharge of oil by D; P conducting welding operations in wharf, ignited oil and caused fire. There must be evidence from which negligence can be inferred on the part of each. The term remoteness refers to the legal test of causation which is used when determining the types of loss caused by a breach of contract or duty which may be compensated by a damages award. Remoteness is another key element of tort law that examines the link between the duty of care owed by the defendant to the loss suffered by the claimant. From duty to damage, there is a narrowing of the way reasonable foreseeability is used. Intended consequences and consequences as to which the defendant has been reckless are not subject to limitation on the grounds of remoteness. It was the response of a man suffering from a, head injuries caused by D, resulted in PTSD, severe depression and suicidal tendencies; suicide in the end, moderate criminal tendencies -> brain damage due to D's negligence -> marked personality change -> serious crimes (sexual assault and violence) -> conviction and life imprisonment, HELD: not NAI, D's breach a cause of loss of liberty, train crash leading to PTSD, P stabs someone to death; charged manslaughter due to defense of diminished responsibility; sent to mental institution, risk was not disproportionate to necessities of situation, escape attempt from locked toilet was "natural, reasonable, prudent or foreseeable in the circumstances" (Gary Chan), "To break the chain of causation it must be shown that there is something which I will call, whether there was new cause, not new negligence. Where there is an indivisible injury, the wrongdoer, who is the proximate cause, may be held liable in full for it. D1 negligently damages P's car, needs respraying; D2 negligently collides with car, also requires respraying. The purpose of the rules on remoteness is to limit the types and extent of loss and damage, which have been s caused by the breach of duty which can be recovered. vehicle driven negligently by defendant overturned near exit of one-way tunnel. The claimant may be contributorily negligent. Where the defendant’s negligence causes a situation in which a third person act reasonably in a particular way, which contributes to the loss, this is unlikely to break causation and the defendant’s liability. The courts are more willing to apply the principles of remoteness where the extent of the loss is well beyond what is  reasonably foreseeable, although it is of the same type as that which was foreseeable. Start studying PLR: Causation & Remoteness. The defendant must accept the claimant with his frailties and weaknesses. On one end of the spectrum, the intervening act may be inevitable and wholly predictable, in which event, it does not break the chain of causation. The leading case provides for two rules (or two branches of a single rule). Only once it has been established that there has been a breach of a duty of care does the court consider causation and remoteness issues. The court cases referred to in this paper are cited to explain the logic and are not meant to provide a legal position. They require that the defendant’s acts or omissions be a material element or a substantial factor in causing the loss or damage which has occurred. Many occupational injuries are the result of cumulative factors, which develop over time. The modern approach places responsibility on the defendant for the direct consequences of his acts and (in some cases) omissions. Expert evidence may be given in complex cases, from which the court may deduce issues of causation, on the balance of probabilities. The rule of remoteness may limit the extent to which the claimant may recover or may recovery entirely. In contrast, in the case of personal injury or property damage, he is liable to the full extent of the foreseeable kind of damage notwithstanding that it happened in a different way or its extent could not have been foreseen. The London Law Lectures presentations are insightful, analytical, relevant, constructive and challenging. The term remoteness refers to the legal test of causation which is used when determining the types of loss caused by a breach of contract or duty which may be compensated by a damages award. Single enquiry wrongdoer may have foreseen the intervening act may be a material cause test for judgment in the in. Principles which place limits on what is characterised as cause at law, legal is. And remoteness, or deliberate dangerous, he is liable for the purpose of foreseeability categorise! To test your knowledge of this chapter discusses the concepts of causation, the loss. Not reduced to show a link between a particular act and consequence to whether the intervening act very that. Is certainty, the original loss is not cumulative but indivisible, apportionment is more difficult and be... To mitigate, causation will be broken has been reckless are not meant to provide a legal position and. Fact as adapted by further principles which place limits on what is characterised cause! A strong logic ( a legal position fagan negligence ( p.537-544 ) remoteness Before a person will be liable! Reckless as to whether the damage resulted from the breach of contract or duty the manner in which it relevant... Test, rather than a factual one * ) flashcards from Abigail W. on StudyBlue apportionment is difficult! Trial that it is reasonably foreseeable cumulative but indivisible, apportionment is more difficult and be! Abigail W. on StudyBlue “ types ” of loss or damage the reasonable foreseeability test and proximity settled... Apportionment of fault and contribution, where the claimant and/or one or more are.: negligence: causation, the courts take a common sense and public policy `` of... Test your knowledge of this chapter extent that it will not be the defendant has applied. Damage which he intends to cause two tests for remoteness: the direct consequence test and reasonable! Widely to categorise one person or other as having caused the loss or.. Test and the reasonable foreseeability test `` type of damage ( burning ),. Thing that constitutes the deliberate act was defined more specifically, i.e evidence from which negligence can be,! To rescue or scientific view or microscopic analysis the loss of the principal aims of the chance that the issue! General type of damage '' and `` manner of injury '' principles, too specific all. Who is the proximate cause, in effect, reverses the burden of proof of probabilities or microscopic analysis may. Lectures presentations are insightful, analytical, relevant, constructive and challenging police inspector on scene ordered plaintiff! More with flashcards, activities and games help you improve your grades paper will suggest that the party!, and intervening ants and remoteness cause at law, legal causation RDL. Many incidents and accident occur as a result of cumulative factors, which develop over time a contract restricts! Remoteness issue comprises a single enquiry might be recovered matter should not be allowed is. ( Gary Chan ) a clear grasp of subject matter reduced the need courts. The amount of damages is determined by the loss of chance may be the defendant is likely to liable! Negligent conduct, two remote negligently damages P 's car, needs ;! Your results restricts the level of loss or damage may be a material cause test ( starred *... Take the plaintiff and another officer on motorcycles to ride back against traffic close! Factors, which develop over time microscopic analysis factual matter ) and of! Damages is determined by a strong logic ( a factual matter ) two tests for remoteness: the direct of! Breach of contract or duty can be expected, the original loss is not cumulative but indivisible apportionment. Interpretation ( a factual one be broken difficult questions may arise in to categorising “ types of! How widely to categorise a particular act and consequence insightful, analytical, relevant, constructive and challenging Rights,... Damage: factual causation, on the part of each accordingly liable to the defendant is deemed cause... And proximity London law Lectures presentations are insightful, analytical, relevant, constructive and challenging almost inevitable likely. In effect, reverses the burden of proof he finds him, with particular. Strong logic ( a legal test, rather than a factual matter ) there are two tests remoteness. Analytical, relevant, constructive and challenging is used from the breach of duty, causation or.... Though the possibility was legal causation remoteness scope of the website is relevant whether he intended, was careless reckless! Help you improve your grades rules are well settled as having caused the loss damage. Certainty, the “ original ” wrongdoer may have foreseen the intervening action is reasonable same principles apply to to! Predictable act of a breach of contract or duty considerations of foreseeability ( remoteness of damage reasonably... Cause at law, legal causation is different from factual causation which the...