CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS

OF DAMAGES
Definitions
Causation in Fact – single cause, multiple causes
& consecutive /successive causes
Intervening Acts – novus actus interveniens
Causation in Law/ Remoteness of Damages DEFINITIONS

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 2

DEFINITIONS
• A chain of causation
Causation between the breach
and the damage
in Fact

Single Cause
• Remoteness of
Causation damage – concerned
with the legal
CAUSATION IN FACT
in Law consequences of the
defendant’s act

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 3 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 4

CAUSATION IN FACT CAUSATION IN FACT

Single Cause
• The most widely used concept to establish the
cause of the damage is the ‘but-for test’.
What is the ‘but-for test’?
The damage to the plaintiff
would not have taken place
but for the defendant’s
breach of duty
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 5 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman
Single Cause
• In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
Management Committee [1968] 1 All ER 1068,
the plaintiff’s husband arrived at the casualty
department and complained of vomiting after
drinking tea. When the nurse called the
casualty doctor, he refused to examine the
patient asking him to go home and to call his
own doctors. The patient left and a few hours
later he died from what was found to be
arsenic poisoning.
6

1
 CAUSATION IN FACT
Single Cause – Barnett’s case
• Although the judge found that the hospital
was negligent in refusing to admit and treat
the patient, the claim failed on the evidence
that even if he had been admitted and treated
with all due care, he would have died.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman
CAUSATION IN FACT
Single Cause
• In Government of Malaysia & Ors v Jumat bin
Mahmud & Anor [1977] 2 MLJ 103, the plaintiff
injured his right eye when another pupil pricked
his thigh with a pin causing him to turn round and
the eye came into contact with the sharp end of
the pencil which the pupil was holding.
Subsequently, the eye had to be removed.
• The plaintiff brought an action claiming that there
was lack of supervision by the teacher that
resulted in the accident which caused the injury.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman
CAUSATION IN FACT
Single Cause
• The previous case of Jumat must be
distinguished from the case of Mohamed
Raihan & Anor v Government of Malaysia &
Ors [1981] 2 MLJ 27.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman
CAUSATION IN FACT
Single Cause
• In Ang Chai Ha & Ors v Sri Jaya Transport Co
(PTM) Bhd [1974] 1 MLJ 87, the defendant’s
bus collided with the plaintiff’s car which
caught fire. The plaintiff died due to extensive
burns. The defendant admitted negligent
driving but contended that the death was
neither caused by nor the direct consequence
of the collision.
7 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 8
CAUSATION IN FACT
Single Cause – Jumat’s case
• Raja Azlan Shah J. held that:
– “…there is no factual basis of the causal
connection between the step the trial judge was
entitled to think the teacher ought, in the
performance of her duty of care, to have taken
and the injury of which the plaintiff sustained…”
9 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 10
Multiple Causes
CAUSATION IN FACT
11 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 12
2
 CAUSATION IN FACT
Multiple Causes
• If the ‘but-for test’ is applied to a case where the
plaintiff’s injury is caused by a number of factors,
the defendant could escape liability by arguing
that the damage is not caused by his negligence.
• Since there is another set of circumstances
existed at that time which would cause the
damage independently, the argument could be
accepted and the plaintiff might be left without a
redress.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 13
CAUSATION IN FACT
Multiple Causes
• The principle was distinguished in the case of
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1
All ER 871
• The trial judge and a majority of the Court of
Appeal held that the defendant was liable but
when the case went to the House of Lords, the
judge allowed the defendant’s appeal on the
issue of causation.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 15
CAUSATION IN FACT
Consecutive/Successive Causes
• In Performance Cars v Abraham [1962] 1 QB
33, the Court of Appeal held that the necessity
for respraying was not the result of the second
defendant’s negligent because that necessity
already existed and the damage claimed did
not flow from his wrongdoing. His negligence
had not caused the need for a respray.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 17
CAUSATION IN FACT
Multiple Causes
• McGhee v National Goal Board [1972] 3 All ER 1008
• In this case, the plaintiff worked in a brick kiln under
hot and dusty condition in which brick dust adhered to
his sweaty skin. There was no washing facilities and
after work, he cycled home everyday with his body still
in caked in brick dust. It was accepted that brick dust
could cause dermatitis.
• The House of Lords held that the defendant was liable
for increasing the risk of dermatitis and this type of
damage had in fact occurred.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 14
Consecutive/Successive Causes
CAUSATION IN FACT
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 16
CAUSATION IN FACT
Consecutive/Successive Causes
The House of Lords refused to apply the ‘but-for test’ in Baker v
Willoughby [1970] AC 467 in which the plaintiff’s left leg was
negligently injured by the defendant in a car accident which
occurred in 1964. Lord Pearson said that: the supervening event
has not made the plaintiff less lame nor less disabled nor less
deprived of amenities. It has not shortened the period over which
he will be suffering. It has made him more lame, more disabled,
more deprived of amenities.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 18
3
 CAUSATION IN FACT
Consecutive/Successive Causes
• The reasoning in Baker was severely criticised
by all the members of the House of Lords in
Jobling v Associated Diaries Ltd [1981] 2 All ER
752.
• It was held that the spinal disease could not
be ignored in assessing compensation after
taking all relevant factors in consideration and
it was a relevant factor that the disease would
have overtaken the plaintiff in any event.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 19
INTERVENING ACTS
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 21
INTERVENING ACTS
Intervening Act of the Plaintiff
• If the defendant’s negligence and the
plaintiff’s act or omission both contribute to
the plaintiff’s injury, then the issue is one of
contributory negligence and the damages
awarded to a contributorily negligent victim of
a tort will be reduced in proportion to his
blame.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 23
CAUSATION IN FACT
Consecutive/Successive Causes
• Lord Wilberforce stated that:
– In the present case, the Court of Appeal reached
the unanswerable conclusion that to apply Baker v
Willoughby to the facts of the present case would
produce an unjust result and I am willing to accept
the collorary that justice, so far as it can be
perceived, lies the other way and that the
supervening myelopathy should not be
disregarded.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 20
INTERVENING ACTS
Novus Actus Interveniens
• Although the ‘but-for test’ of causation between
the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s
damage is satisfied, the plaintiff will be denied
recovery if the defendant could prove a new
intervening act which breaks the chain of
causation.
• The chain of causation could be broken by 3
events:
– Intervening act of the plaintiff
– Intervening act of the third party
– Intervening natural event – act of God
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 22
INTERVENING ACTS
Intervening Act of the Plaintiff
• In McKew v Holland, Hannen & Cubitts
(Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621, the House
of Lords held that the unreasonable act of the
plaintiff putting himself in a situation of
emergency as a result of which he sustained
further injury amounted to a novus actus
interveniens.
• This case can be compared with Wieland v
Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1006.
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 24
4
 INTERVENING ACTS
Intervening Act of the 3rd Party
• It is a common law principle that an individual
ought not to be held responsible for the act of
a third party.
• Where the defendant’s negligence is followed
by the act of a third party causing further
damage to the plaintiff, the defendant will not
be liable for this damage if he can prove that
the intervening act of the third party was a
novus actus interveniens.
INTERVENING ACTS
Intervening Act of the 3rd Party
• To break the chain of causation, the intervening
act of the third party must be voluntary and must
be independent of the breach of duty.
• For example, the act of master in The Oropesa
[1943] 1 All ER 211, in launching a lifeboat after
his ship collided with another ship was held to be
a reasonable act directly caused by the accident.
• Compared to
– Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349
– Rouse v Squires [1973] 1 QB 889

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 25 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 26

INTERVENING ACTS
Intervening Natural Event – Act of God
• A good example of a case in which damage
caused by a natural event amounting to a
novus actus interveniens is Carslogie
Steamship Co. Ltd. v Royal Norwegian
Government [1952] AC 292.
• The House of Lords held that the weather
damage was not connected with the collision
damage. It was a novus actus interveniens for
CAUSATION IN LAW
which the defendant could not be held liable.

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 27 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 28

CAUSATION IN LAW
CAUSATION IN LAW
Tests on Remoteness
• Even if the plaintiff could prove that the
Direct Reasonable
defendant’s negligence caused the injury in Consequence Foreseeability
question, damages may still be denied by Test Test
saying that the breach of duty was not the
Re Polemis The Wagon
legal cause or that the damage was too (1921) 3 KB Mound [1961]
remote. 560 AC 388

Based on fault Damage of a

rather than particular kind
compensation is foreseeable

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 29 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 30

5
 CAUSATION IN LAW CAUSATION IN LAW
Application of the Tests The Extent of the Injury
• Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837 • A) Extensive Damage
• Government of Malaysia & Ors v Jumat bin • Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd. [1967] 1 All
Mahmud & Anor [1977] 2 MLJ 103 ER 267
• Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
[1964] 1 QB 518 • B) Egg Shell Skull Rule/Thin Skull Rule
• Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. (1962) 2 QB
405

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 31 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 32

END OF CAUSATION OF DAMAGES

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 33