Causation - LAWS 204

Front

How do the courts generally assess wether or not the defendant's negligence was the actual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff?

Back

By using the 'but-for' criteria, the courts ask the question: "Were it not for the defendant's negligence, would the harm, still have occured?". If yes, then the defendant is liable under the tort of negligence, but if not, then the defendant is not liable under the tort of negligence.

Front

What did the court hold in the case of Barnett?

Back

The court in the case of barnett held that if the defendant's negligence made a contribution that was more than 50% to the harm suffered, then the 'but-for criteria' would be met, and the defendants negligence will be the root cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Front

Is the 'but-for' criteria the only test that the courts use in order to assess wether or not the defendant's negligence was the actual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff? Why why not?

Back

No, because, as was held in the case of Cook, if the actual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff, is too vague to be pinpointed, then the 'but-for' criteria is useless!

Front

What were the facts around the case of Wardlaw?

Back

In the case of Wardlaw, the plaintiff suffered a cumulative disease (the harm suffered by the plaintiff) due to both an 'innocent' source of dust (i.e. was not the result of the defendant's negligence) and a 'guilty' source of dust (i.e. was the result of the defendant's negligence).

Front

What did the court hold in the case of Wardlaw?

Back

In the case of Wardlaw, the court held that because the defendant's negligence made a significant contribution to the cumulative disease that the plaintiff suffered, the actual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff was the 'guilty' source of dust that was due to the defendant's negligence and not the innocent source of dust that was not due to the defendant's negligence!

Front

What is an indivisble cause?

Back

An indivisible cause is something that happens out of nowhere/suddenly.

Front

What is a divisible cause?

Back

A divisible cause is something that happens over time.

Front

What did the court hold in the case of Bailey?

Back

In the case of Bailey, the court held that the doctors contribution made a material difference, and so his actions were the root/factual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Front

How does factual causation relate to ACC claims?

Back

In the case of Atkinson, the court held that proof of causation is required to make a successful ACC claim, for medical misadventure, and the burden of proof is on the claimant, in this regard.

Front

What if there is too much uncertainty in relation to factual causation that must be proved for a succesful ACC claim?

Back

In the case of Ambros, the court held that if there is too much uncertainty in relation to factual causation that must be proved for a succesful ACC claim, then the principle of law in Wardlaw will be highly influential in the NZ courts.