Whether D's breach was cause in fact
C must prove that there was causal causation between D's breach and C's damage
But for test
Material contribution to harm test
Material increase in risk test
Informed consent
D's contribution should be "material" which means more than minimal
Doesn't have to be main/only cause
But for test
Was D's conduct a necessary cause of all/some of C's damage?
Necessary cause: cause or materially contribute
All/some: may be divisible/indivisible
o Divisible:
Can break up/portion damage to different causes
Can say if D's are responsible for certain amount of damage
E.g. noise induced deafness - the more loud noise exposed to the worst
damage is
Vibrational finger - from using vibrational tools and some other causes
Asbestosis - gets worse the more asbestos dust you breathe it
If working for different employers, can calculate how much each is
liable
o Indivisible:
If D's conduct was but for cause/material contribution - liable in full
Cancer - lung in particular
Doesn't usually get worse the more you smoke/breathe in dust, etc.
Brain damage
Doesn’t usually get worse the more you are exposed to something -
but depends
Heart attack
Usually doesn't get worse more stressed you are
Psychiatric harm: debate
Test
Test used by court in determining whether or not D caused damage to C
o But for the defendant’s breach of duty (not simply actions) would the harm have
occurred?
Problems with test:
o Not always easy - can be hard to imagine what would have happened without D's
negligence
o 1st problem:
Situations where there are multiple causes of harm
And lack of knowledge (e.g. scientific/forensic) that makes it
difficult/impossible to establish what would have happened
Complex medical situations, accidents involving multiple vehicles
o 2nd problem: where you can work out factual cause as percentage, but result
appears unjust
C must prove that there was causal causation between D's breach and C's damage
But for test
Material contribution to harm test
Material increase in risk test
Informed consent
D's contribution should be "material" which means more than minimal
Doesn't have to be main/only cause
But for test
Was D's conduct a necessary cause of all/some of C's damage?
Necessary cause: cause or materially contribute
All/some: may be divisible/indivisible
o Divisible:
Can break up/portion damage to different causes
Can say if D's are responsible for certain amount of damage
E.g. noise induced deafness - the more loud noise exposed to the worst
damage is
Vibrational finger - from using vibrational tools and some other causes
Asbestosis - gets worse the more asbestos dust you breathe it
If working for different employers, can calculate how much each is
liable
o Indivisible:
If D's conduct was but for cause/material contribution - liable in full
Cancer - lung in particular
Doesn't usually get worse the more you smoke/breathe in dust, etc.
Brain damage
Doesn’t usually get worse the more you are exposed to something -
but depends
Heart attack
Usually doesn't get worse more stressed you are
Psychiatric harm: debate
Test
Test used by court in determining whether or not D caused damage to C
o But for the defendant’s breach of duty (not simply actions) would the harm have
occurred?
Problems with test:
o Not always easy - can be hard to imagine what would have happened without D's
negligence
o 1st problem:
Situations where there are multiple causes of harm
And lack of knowledge (e.g. scientific/forensic) that makes it
difficult/impossible to establish what would have happened
Complex medical situations, accidents involving multiple vehicles
o 2nd problem: where you can work out factual cause as percentage, but result
appears unjust
