Causation and Remoteness

When a breach of duty of care was the cause of damage, a nexus between the two is established. This means, 'but for the breach of duty' damage would not have been caused. This is called the 'but for' test. This is a hypothetical test used to establish causation in fact. This test decides the impact and extent of damage caused to a person. If the damage caused is a direct consequence of the breach of duty and 'but for' this breach, the damage would not have been caused, then the breach is the causation for the damage.

Resurface Corp v. Hanke

• This incident occurred on November 29, 2000, at Northlands Park in Edmonton, Alberta.
• Dennis Hanke was operating an Olympia ice resurfacing machine and mistakenly poured hot water into the machine's gasoline tank instead of the water tank.
• The mistake caused an explosion, leading to severe injuries for Hanke.
• The Olympia machine had separate tanks for water and gasoline, with similar-looking caps that were not labeled or distinguishable by touch.
• Hanke claimed that the machine's design, specifically the lack of clear labeling and differentiation between the caps, contributed to his mistake and subsequent injury.

Legal Issues:

• Was Resurface Corp negligent in the design of the Olympia ice resurfacing machine?
• Did the manufacturer have a duty of care to design the machine to prevent such mistakes, and was the design inherently unsafe?
• Was the design defect a direct cause of Hanke's injuries?
• Was Hanke's mistake (pouring hot water into the gasoline tank) a foreseeable consequence of the machine's design?

Judgment:

• Hanke failed to prove that the machine's design was the cause of his injuries.
• Although the design may have contributed to the mistake, the direct cause of the accident was Hanke's own error.

Causation and the "But For" Test

• The court applied the "but for" test to determine causation, asking whether the injury would have occurred "but for" Hanke's actions.
• It was concluded that Hanke's own mistake was the primary cause of the explosion, not necessarily the machine's design.
• Manufacturers have a duty of care to ensure their products are reasonably safe for use, but this duty does not extend to preventing every conceivable user error.
• The "but for" test asks whether "the harm would not have occurred to Hanke but for his own actions."

Barnett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

• On New Year's Eve, 1965, Armon Barnett and two colleagues consumed tea laced with arsenic.
• Feeling unwell, they went to the casualty department of Chelsea & Kensington Hospital on January 1, 1966.
• A nurse contacted Dr. Banerjee, who, without examining them, advised sending them home and instructing them to contact their own doctors.
• Barnett later died of acute arsenic poisoning. A post-mortem revealed that even with immediate medical treatment, he would not have survived due to the large quantity of arsenic consumed.

Legal Issues:

• Did the hospital and Dr. Banerjee owe a duty of care to Barnett when he sought medical assistance?
• Did Dr. Banerjee breach his duty of care by failing to examine Barnett and sending him home without treatment?
• Was Dr. Banerjee's breach of duty the cause of Barnett's death, considering that medical evidence suggested he would have died regardless?

Judgment:

• The hospital and Dr. Banerjee owed a duty of care to Barnett, as he had presented himself at the hospital seeking medical help.
• Dr. Banerjee breached his duty of care by failing to examine Barnett and sending him away without treatment.
• This was considered negligent behavior on the part of the hospital.

Despite the breach of duty, the breach did not cause Barnett's death. Applying the "but for" test, Barnett would have died regardless of the treatment due to the amount of arsenic he had ingested. The "but for" test in this context means that Barnett must prove that but for the defendant's negligence, the harm would not have occurred. In this case, even with appropriate treatment, Barnett's death was inevitable. Causation must be proven and the "but for" test helped in determining whether Barnett's actions directly caused him the harm.Nature of causation. People cannot sue doctors for the loss of a chance to get better, when they fail to do as good a job as they could have done. Causation and the "loss of chance"
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority. A 13-year-old boy named Master Hotson, fell off a tree and injured his hip. He was taken to a hospital managed by the East Berkshire Area Health Authority. At the hospital, the medical staff failed to diagnose that Master Hotson had sustained a fracture to his femoral epiphysis (the growth plate in his hip) and sent him home. Five days later, after his condition worsened, he returned to the hospital where the correct diagnosis was made and appropriate treatment was administered.

Despite the treatment, Master Hotson developed avascular necrosis, a condition where the blood supply to the bone is disrupted, leading to the death of bone tissue. This condition resulted in permanent disability, including a deformed hip and considerable pain and suffering. Master Hotson (through his parents) contended that East Berkshire Area Health Authority's initial misdiagnosis and delay in treatment caused the avascular necrosis. If the correct diagnosis had been made promptly, he would have had a better chance of recovery without developing avascular necrosis.Considering the "loss of chance" doctrine, which pertains to whether Hotson can recover damages for losing a chance of a better outcome due to the Hospital's negligence.Here, lost chance was not accepted since the negligence was not the cause of injury.