LAW1113 Lecture Notes - Lecture 13: Hospital Management Committee, Arsenic Poisoning, Esophagus
!"#$$$%&'()'*&+&,"*-&*.//")0-*&"12&3-4&5(01'*&
1-6!06-1,-&7&,".*"'0(1&8&)-/('-1-**&
!
,9:;9<=>?&
*@A<=>?&
2@<9=B;&
;&C$D$EF&#G>?H;&"A<I&
A!determination!that!negligence!caused!a!particular!harm!comprises!the!following!elements!–!!
(a) that!the!negligence!was!a!necessary!condition!of!the!occurrence!of!the!harm!(J9A<:9B&A9:;9<=>?);!!
and!
(b) !that!it!is!appropriate!for!the!scope!of!the!negligent!person’s!liability!to!extend!to!the!harm!so!caused!
(;A>K@&>J&B=9L=B=<M).!
;&CNF&&Wrongs'Act:'Requires!the!P!to!prove!(on!the!
balance!of!probabilities)!any!fact!relevant!to!
causation!
Ø .;@I!For!when!the!exposure!of!the!harm!cannot!
be!specifically!identified!(e.g.!P!developing!a!
disease!as!a!result!to!exposure!to!a!series!of!risk!
factors)!
O9A<:9B&,9:;9<=>?&DA9:;9<=>?&=?&J9A<E&&
#9;&2P;&A>?Q:A<&9<&B@9;<&>?@&>J&<R@&S@M&J9A<:9B&
A9:;@;&>J&5P;&B>;;&D9&?@A@;;9GM&A>?Q=<=>?&>J&R9GTEU&
&
Necessary'Condition'Test'
Ø Every!occurrence!involves!a!complex!of!causes!
that!are!jointly!sufficient!to!produce!it!
Ø To!be!a!cause!the!D’s!breach!therefore!need!not!
be!the!only!cause,!but!it!must!contribute!in!a!real!
or!a!material!way!to!the!P’s!harm:!sometimes!
referred!to!as!a!“material!contribution”!
!
Ø 1@A@;;9GM&A9:;@I&1><&<R@&>?BM&A9:;@&
Ø 1@A@;;9GM&A>?Q=<=>?I&0J&M>:&<9S@&9V9M&<R@&
A>?Q=<=>?F&<R@&R9GT&=;&:?B=S@BM&<>&>AA:G&
o Considered!via!common!sense:!Matter!for!
judge!to!decide!
!
‘But'for’'Test'
'
Ø #>:BQ&<R@&KB9=?<=JJP;&;K@A=J=A&=?W:GM&R9X@&
>AA:GG@Q&L:<&J>G&<R@&Q@J@?Q9?<P;&LG@9AR&>J&Q:<M&
>J&A9G@U&'R=;&=;&9&KG>L9L=B=;<=A&=?Y:=GM&DT:;<&L@&
T>G@&B=S@BM&<R9?&?><E&
o Barnett'v'Chelsea'&'Kensington'Hospital'
Management'Committee'(1969)!
o Strong'v'Woolworths'(2012)!
o March'v'Stramare'Pty'Ltd'(1991):!‘But!for’!
test!is!not!conclusive!
*A>K@&>J&B=9L=B=<M&DA9:;9<=>?&=?&B9VE&D"Z3Z"&
1>GT9<=X@&KG>K@G<ME!
&0;&=<&9KKG>KG=9<@&<R9<&2&L@&R@BQ&B=9LB@&9<&B9V&J>G&
<R9<&K9G<=A:B9G&R9GT&D;A>K@&>J&B=9L=B=<ME&&
&
S!51(3):!
If!it!is!relevant!to!the!determination!of!factual!
causation!to!determine!what!the!person!who!
suffered!harm!(the&injured!person)!would!have!done!
if!the!negligent!person!had!not!been!negligent,!the!
matter!is!to!be!determined!subjectively!in!the!light!
of!all!relevant!circumstances.!
*>T@<=T@;F&=?&Q@<@GT=?=?H&VR@<R@G&<R@&5&V>:BQ&
R9X@&L@@?&R9GT@Q&[L:<&J>G\&<R@&2P;&A>?Q:A<F&VR9<&
<R@&5&V>:BQ&R9X@&Q>?@&=;&G@B@X9?<Z&&
Ø Chappel'v'Hart'(1998):!Medical!warning!
(Succeeds)!
Ø Wallace'v'Kam:!Medical!warning!(Fails)'
!"#$$$%&'()'*&+&,"*-&*.//")0-*&"12&3-4&5(01'*&
s!51(2):!if!something!is!not!found!to!be!a!necessary!
condition!of!the!harm,!consideration!should!be!given!
as!to!whether!or!not!and!why!responsibility!should!
nonetheless!be!imposed!on!the!defendant!
Ø .;@I&For!multiple!sufficient!causes!(i.e.!false!
negatives!(‘but!for’!test)!
"KKB=A9<=>?&>J&,>TT>?&*@?;@&
Where!the!D’s!negligence!merely!brings!the!P!into!
the!spatial!and!temporal!position!where!the!P!
encounters!an!ordinary!hazard!of!life,!the!negligence!
not!imposing!a!handicap!on!the!P!meeting!that!
hazard,!the!D’s!negligence!is!not!a!cause!of!the!injury!
in!legal!terms!!
Ø ]:;<&T9S=?H&<R@T&T@@<&<R@&R9^9GQ&D=Z@Z&K:<&=?&
KB9A@&9?Q&<=T@E&=;&?><&@?>:HR&&
!
s!51(4),&Wrongs'Act:!
For!the!purposes!of!determining!scope!of!liability,!
the!court!is!to!consider!(among!other!things)!
whether!or!not!and!why!responsibility!for!the!harm!
should!be!imposed!on!the!negligent!party!
• Section!51(2):!if!something!is!not!found!to!be!a!
necessary!condition!of!the!harm,!consideration!
should!be!given!as!to!whether!or!not!and!why!
responsibility!should!nonetheless!be!imposed!on!
the!defendant!
!
,>?;=Q@G@Q&9;&G@Y:=G@Q&LM&;&C$D_E&
*R>:BQ&<R@&Q@J@?Q9?<P;&;A>K@&>J&B=9L=B=<M&@`<@?Q&<>&
<R@&=?W:GM&;:JJ@G@Q&LM&<R@&KB9=?<=JJU&
Ø Any!policy!arguments!for!or!against!the!finding!
of!causative!legal!responsibility?!
Ø Where!there!are!a!number!of!factual!causes!
operating!on!the!P!in!succession,!which!is!legally!
relevant!for!the!purpose!of!attributing!legal!
liability?!–!Novus'Actus'Interveniens'or!
Intervening!Cause!
Ø Wallace'v'Kam:!Failure!to!warn!
Ø Haber'v'Walker:!Intervening!acts!
Ø Coincidence!
Ø Mahoney'v'Kruschich:!Subsequent!negligent!acts!
(Medical)!
Ø March'v'Stramare:!Subsequent!negligent!acts!
(Illegal)!
!
ab:<&J>GP&<@;<&
,9;@&
2@<9=B;&
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
Barnett'v'Chelsea'&'Kensington'Hospital'
Management'Committee'D$cdcEe&Strong'v'
Woolworths'DNf$NE'
Ø .;@I!‘But!for’!test!(s!52)&
Ø '@;<I!But!for!D’s!breach,!would!P’s!injury!occur?!!
Is!it!more!likely!than!not?!
O9A<;&DBarnett'v'Chelsea'&'Kensington'Hospital'
Management'CommitteeE&
• Nightwatchmen!came!to!the!hospital!and!
complained!about!being!ill!due!to!tea!
• !Doctor!told!man!to!go!home!and!see!own!home!!
• !Consequently,!he!died!from!arsenic!poisoning!!!
• P!sues!hospital!and!fails!
• Injuries!would!still!occur!due!to!the!poisoning!
already!being!severely!advanced!(no!causation)!
O9A<;&DStrong'v'WoolworthsE&
O=G;<&=?;<9?A@&
• P!was!on!crutches!and!she!slips!and!falls!due!to!
her!right!crutch!coming!into!contact!with!the!
greasy!chip!
• !P!suffers!severe!back!injury!!
• D!could!have!avoided!the!farm!by!cleaning!up!
the!chip!or!by!alerting!customers!!
• Since!their!duty!is!being!alert!and!the!harm!is!
their!responsibility,!breach!was!made!out!
• D!!had!a!contract!to!clean!every!20!minutes!
(responsibility!for!cleaning),!thus!causation!is!
Document Summary
Every occurrence involves a complex of causes that are jointly sufficient to produce it. To be a cause the d"s breach therefore need not be the only cause, but it must contribute in a real or a material way to the p"s harm: sometimes referred to as a material contribution . Necessary condition: if you take away the condition, the harm is unlikely to occur: considered via common sense: matter for judge to decide. This is a probabilistic inquiry (must be more likely than not: barnett v chelsea & kensington hospital. Management committee (1969: strong v woolworths (2012, march v stramare pty ltd (1991): but for" test is not conclusive. Is it appropriate that d be held liable at law for that particular harm (scope of liability) Sometimes, in determining whether the p would have been harmed but for the d"s conduct, what the p would have done is relevant. Chappel v hart (1998): medical warning (succeeds)
