After proving that the Defendant has a Duty of Care towards the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant
has
breached this Duty of Care, the Defendant will be considered in violation of the Tort of Negligence if the
final step, which is causation, is proven.
The causation establishes a connection between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm. The
primary test used to assess causation is the "but for" test, which asks whether the harm would have
occurred "but for" the defendant's actions. The plaintiff must be able to prove that the defendant’s
negligence caused the damage suffered. The application of this test involves the consideration of a
hypothetical situation, where the circumstances are the same as the facts of the case except for the
defendant’s negligence. If, in this hypothetical situation, the plaintiff would not have suffered damage
then the defendant’s negligence is taken to be the effective cause of the plaintiff’s damage.
In this case, The High Court held that Woolworths had breached its duty of care towards their customers.
And it was a substantial factor in causing Mrs. Strong's injury. The court held it is probable that the chip
was dropped more than 20mins before Mrs. Strong fell, therefore, Woolworths' failure to maintain a safe
environment was a significant contributing factor to the incident. This case reaffirmed the principles of
negligence in Australian tort law, highlighting the plaintiff need to prove the causation regardless of
there is a defendant’s breach of care of duty
The High Court has affirmed that the main question in any inquiry into causation remains whether it
was more probable than not that the defendant’s breach was the cause of the plaintiff’s loss.
In this case, Dr. Chappel performed the operation without negligence but accidentally perforated the
esophagus, leading to damage of the plaintiff’s vocal chords. Although the defender had warned Mrs.
Hart of the risk of perforation but not the possibility of vocal damage. The plaintiff claimed that if she
had been informed of this risk, she would have the operation performed by a more experienced surgeon
at a later date. The plaintiff successfully proved the defendant not informing about the operation risk is
the main cause of her damage and the defendant had to compensate for this.
Also in the medical field with the lack of giving enough information about the risk, this case has a
opposite result to the one I have mentioned. The hospital breached its duty of care by failing to
adequately inform the parents about the potential condition and risks associated with the baby when
giving birth. The plaintiffs claimed that if they had been properly warned, they would have considered
termination of pregnancy. However, the court held that this breach of duty was not causally linked to the
harm of the baby. Even if the parents had been warned, termination might not have occurred, and the
disabilities would still have been present. As a result, the plaintiffs’ claim for wrongful birth failed, and
they were not entitled to damages
There is an additional element for determining whether a breach of duty caused the particular harm.
This requirement relates to the “scope of liability”. It involves the “remoteness of damage” question
considered at common law to determine whether, and to what extent, a defendant may be held legally
responsible for their actions that result in harm to another person. The test for determining whether the
damage is too remote, and therefore not recoverable, is whether the damage was reasonably
foreseeable by the defendant. A leading case on the issue is the decision of the Privy Council in Overseas
Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961] AC 388.
The High Court ruled that the defendant company was not liable for the damage caused by the fire.
While the spillage of oil was a negligent act by the defendant, the damage caused by the fire was too
remote and unforeseeable to hold the defendant liable. The court reasoned that the defendant could
not have reasonably foreseen that the oil spill would lead to a fire of such magnitude. Maybe the
defendant needed to compensate for the act of splitting the oil, making the ocean polluted but not have
to compensate for the fired wharf. This is also the humanity in the common law.
If it can be proven that without Defendant's breach, Plaintiff would not have suffered damage, and that
the damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the breach, then Causation factor will be
proven. We can come to the conclusion that Defendant violated the Tort of Negligence against Plaintiff.
(1) Factual Causation: it was caused by the defendant’s negligence If there was no breach of Defendant's
Duty of Care, would Plaintiff have suffered damages?
(2) Scope of Defendant’s Liability: Can the damage reasonably be seen as a consequence of the breach?
Or is the damage too remote or not reasonably visible?
Factual Causation:
The “but for” test has been applied in industrial accident cases to determine the causal relevance of a
defendant employer’s failure to provide or warn employees to wear protective gear: Cummings v Sir
William Arrol & Co Ltd [1962] 1 WLR 295.
In this case, the court found that the breach of duty was established, but the plaintiff was unable to
show that the deceased construction worker who fell to his death from a steel tower would have worn a
safety belt if one had been provided and he would have suffered the same injury regardless.
Consequently, the claim failed on causation grounds. Clearly, while the breach of duty was proven, the
lack of causation led to the dismissal of the appeal.
In this case, The High Court held that Woolworths had breached its duty of care towards their customers.
And it was a substantial factor in causing Mrs. Strong's injury. The court held it is probable that the chip
was dropped more than 20 minutes before Mrs. Strong fell, therefore, Woolworths' failure to maintain a
safe environment was a significant contributing factor to the incident. This case reaffirmed the plaintiff's
need to prove the causation regardless of whether there is a defendant’s breach of care of duty in Tort
Law.