Complex Causation:
GET BASICS FROM A LEVEL WORK
Looking to a remedy in obligations implies: assertion of a link between defendant and harm;
and ascription of legal responsibility due to that link
Causation must be proven and since burden of proof is on the person asserting a fact and
the Claimant is asserting that the harm was done by the defendant’s tort, the burden of
proof to prove causation is on the claimant. Failure to prove this will result in the claim being
dismissed.
Example 1: Responsibility
A traveller sets off on a journey into the desert, he carries water with him. He has two enemies who
both wish to kill him. One of them poisons his water, the other makes a hole in the water small
enough it won’t be noticed but big enough that after a few hours the water will be gone (hoping he
will dehydrate to death). The traveller dies. Who is responsible? But for test – would have died
anyway either way if one enemy had not tried
Example 2: Uncertainty
Owner of a log cabin has an enemy who sets fire to the cabin. However shortly after a bolt of
lightning hits the house and sets another fire. It burns down. Is the enemy to blame or the lightning?
If both, is causation for enemy still there? Again some frustration of but for test
TECHNIQUE 1: Causal chains
Is an act within the actual chain that led to the harm? If not the claimant cannot recover.
(Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital; Corr v IBC Vehicles; Gray v Thames Trains)
Was the harm consequently consumed by a later act? If so the claimant cannot recover.
(Jobling v Associated Diaries; Gray v Thames Trains)
TECHNIQUE 2: Material contribution to injury
The claimant can recover if: the harm was caused by the tortious act as well as the non-
tortious circumstances; AND the harm was caused by the totality of circumstances such that
the tort was a partial cause of the entire injury and the tort made a material contribution to
the injury. (Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw; Williams v Bermuda Hospitals Board)
TECHNIQUE 3: Material contribution to risk
The claimant can recover if the harm was caused by one or more factors AND one of the
factors is a tortious breach of duty AND the tortious factor materially increases the risk of
the injury. (McGhee v National Coal Board; Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services; Barker v
Corus; Sienkiewicz v Greif)
GET BASICS FROM A LEVEL WORK
Looking to a remedy in obligations implies: assertion of a link between defendant and harm;
and ascription of legal responsibility due to that link
Causation must be proven and since burden of proof is on the person asserting a fact and
the Claimant is asserting that the harm was done by the defendant’s tort, the burden of
proof to prove causation is on the claimant. Failure to prove this will result in the claim being
dismissed.
Example 1: Responsibility
A traveller sets off on a journey into the desert, he carries water with him. He has two enemies who
both wish to kill him. One of them poisons his water, the other makes a hole in the water small
enough it won’t be noticed but big enough that after a few hours the water will be gone (hoping he
will dehydrate to death). The traveller dies. Who is responsible? But for test – would have died
anyway either way if one enemy had not tried
Example 2: Uncertainty
Owner of a log cabin has an enemy who sets fire to the cabin. However shortly after a bolt of
lightning hits the house and sets another fire. It burns down. Is the enemy to blame or the lightning?
If both, is causation for enemy still there? Again some frustration of but for test
TECHNIQUE 1: Causal chains
Is an act within the actual chain that led to the harm? If not the claimant cannot recover.
(Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital; Corr v IBC Vehicles; Gray v Thames Trains)
Was the harm consequently consumed by a later act? If so the claimant cannot recover.
(Jobling v Associated Diaries; Gray v Thames Trains)
TECHNIQUE 2: Material contribution to injury
The claimant can recover if: the harm was caused by the tortious act as well as the non-
tortious circumstances; AND the harm was caused by the totality of circumstances such that
the tort was a partial cause of the entire injury and the tort made a material contribution to
the injury. (Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw; Williams v Bermuda Hospitals Board)
TECHNIQUE 3: Material contribution to risk
The claimant can recover if the harm was caused by one or more factors AND one of the
factors is a tortious breach of duty AND the tortious factor materially increases the risk of
the injury. (McGhee v National Coal Board; Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services; Barker v
Corus; Sienkiewicz v Greif)
