Thread: Tort Law - FActual Causation...

All,

Thanks for having me here! Got a little problem. I have my Law of Tort Coursework due this coming term and need a little guidance. FInd the question below and would appreciate any direction/advice.

‘The requirement that a claimant alleging negligence must establish a factual causal link between the defendant’s act and the claimant’s loss should only be discharged by proof, on a balance of probabilities, that the loss would not have occurred but for the defendant’s act. No deviations from this position should be permitted.’
Discuss.

Cheers,

Dax.

Hi Dax,

Start by explaining the but for test from Barnett v Chelsea and how it is unfair to hold a person liable for loss for which they did not actually cause. Then outline the problems of proof in situations where there is more than one possible causes and how the courts have deviated from the but for test in order to do justice in these situations. Cases which spring to mind include:

Baker v Willoughby

Bonnington v Wardlow

McGhee v NCB

Fairchild v Glenhaven

See more on causation here:

Causation in tort law

I answered a thread recently about the but-for test. I'll repeat here that it is the most basic test in negligence causation and its object is simple: you cannot blame a defendant for an accident they didn't cause, so the but-for test seeks to establish that their action did in fact cause the accident. have a look at this article which explains all of causation: i didn't cause the accident - negligence law advice