But For Test CASES
In English law, the “but for” test is the primary method of establishing factual causation. It asks whether the claimant’s harm would have occurred but for the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. If the harm would have happened anyway, causation is not established.
Definition and Principles
The test isolates the defendant’s conduct as a necessary condition of the claimant’s loss. It distinguishes between events caused by the defendant and those that would have occurred regardless of their actions.
Requirements for Establishing
- Wrongful act or omission: The defendant must have breached a duty or committed a wrongful act.
- Factual causation: The harm must not have occurred without that breach or act.
- Limitations: The test may be inadequate in cases of multiple causes or uncertainty.
- Further control: Legal causation and remoteness are applied after factual causation is established.
Practical Applications
The test was confirmed in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1969), where negligence by a hospital did not cause death because the patient would have died regardless. Modifications apply in complex causation cases, such as Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (2002).
Importance
The “but for” test provides a straightforward starting point for causation analysis. While not sufficient in all cases, it ensures liability is linked to conduct that actually made a difference to the claimant’s harm.
Home » But For Test
A premature baby was given excess oxygen due to a doctor's negligence and subsequently went blind. However, there were other potential innocent causes. The House of Lords held the plaintiff must prove causation on the balance of probabilities, not simply that negligence increased the risk. Facts The plaintiff, Martin Wilsher, was born three months prematurely, weighing only 1.2 kg. He required care in a special care baby unit and was placed on oxygen therapy. A junior doctor negligently inserted a catheter into a vein rather than an artery, leading to monitoring equipment providing falsely low readings of the arterial oxygen
A steel erector died after falling 70 feet. His employer breached its statutory duty by not providing a safety belt. However, the employer was not held liable as evidence showed the deceased would not have worn a belt anyway, thus breaking the causal link. Facts The case concerned a fatal accident involving an experienced steel erector, Hugh McWilliams, who fell 70 feet to his death while working for the defenders, Sir William Arrol & Co Ltd, on the construction of the Forth Road Bridge. The defenders were in breach of Regulation 94 of the Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations,
A premature baby developed blindness due to Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP). His parents alleged the hospital was negligent for a minor delay in screening. The court held that even without the delay, the outcome would likely have been the same, so the claim failed on causation. Facts The claimant, Master Bishara, was born extremely prematurely at 25 weeks’ gestation. As a result, he was at a high risk of developing Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP), a condition that can lead to blindness if not treated in time. National guidelines recommended that at-risk infants should have their first screening examination between 6
A woman suffered brain damage after choking due to weakness. This weakness was caused by both non-negligent pancreatitis and negligent post-operative care. The court held the hospital liable as its negligence had materially contributed to her weakened state and subsequent injury. Facts The claimant, Mrs Bailey, was admitted to a hospital for a gallstone procedure. Post-operatively, she developed acute pancreatitis, which was not a result of any negligence. Her condition deteriorated, requiring a transfer to an intensive care unit at a hospital run by the second defendant, the Ministry of Defence (MoD). At the MoD hospital, the trial judge found
