untitled

Negligence 233

the defendant’s breach of duty caused the loss. If the claimant would have suffered the
same loss even if the defendant had not breached the duty, then the defendant will not be
liable for the loss. For example, in Barnett vChelsea Hospital (1969)a patient who visited
a hospital suffering from vomiting was negligently turned away by a doctor and died from
arsenic poisoning. The patient would have died anyway, even if the doctor had given him
all possible treatment, and so the hospital was not liable for the patient’s death.
In Hotson vEast Berkshire Health Authority (1987)the defendant’s negligence had a
25 per cent chance of having caused the claimant’s injury. The House of Lords held that to
prove causation on a balance of probabilities what was required was at least a 51 per cent
probability that the negligence caused the injury. Consequently, the claim failed.
To prove that the defendant caused the loss, the claimant must show that there was
a chain of causation between the defendant’s breach of duty and the claimant’s loss. This
chain must not be broken by a new act intervening (previously known as novus actus
interveniens).

Reflex actions will not break the chain of causation. In Carmarthenshire County Council v
Lewis (1955)a lorry driver was killed when he swerved to avoid running over a 4-year-old
boy. A primary school had been negligent in letting the boy get out onto the road. The
school was liable for the driver’s death. The driver’s reflex action of swerving the lorry did
not break the chain of causation.

Multiple causes

Difficulties arise where the claimant’s loss was caused not only by the defendant’s
negligence but also by other causes as well.

The Oropesa (1943) (Court of Appeal)

A ship called the Oropesawas negligently navigated and this caused it to damage another

ship. The captain of the other ship decided to approach the Oropesain a lifeboat to dis-

cuss the best way to save his ship. The lifeboat overturned in the heavy sea and several

crew members were drowned. Their relatives sued the owners of the Oropesa.

HeldThe owners of the Oropesawere liable. The actions of the captain of the other ship did

not break the chain of causation because they were reasonable in all the circumstances.

CommentUnreasonable actions will break the chain. So if one of the lifeboat crew had

drowned after deciding to swim to the Oropesathen the chain would have been broken and

the owners of the Oropesawould not have been liable for his death.

McGhee vNational Coal Board (1972) (House of Lords)

The claimant’s employers asked him to clean out brick kilns. No washing facilities were

provided, even though the work was hot and dirty and exposed the claimant to clouds of

brick dust. The claimant used to ride his bicycle home while caked with sweat and grime.

The claimant soon developed dermatitis. This was caused by working in the kiln, but the

risk of dermatitis was materially increased by the claimant cycling home without washing.

t