Causation could not be established and the claim failed. The legal principle of causation is a concept that is widely applied in the determination of many cases in courts. In other words, the question asked is ‘but for the defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred?’ Similarly, issues can arise in relation to personal injuries. The defendant 's negligence did not cause the victim's death, the arsenic was the cause. Therefore, despite the widening of the but for test the claimant was still unable to satisfy the causation requirement. 82 0 obj <> endobj If yes, as in this case, the defendant is not factually liable. This is the starting point on finding causation. “Causation” in Criminal Law is concerned with whether the defendant’s conduct contributed sufficiently to the prohibited consequence to justify the criminal liability, which would be assessed from two aspects, namely “factual” and “legal” causation. �HYL�u��`o0d7��.��9�\-��)?�1���_��fq_@}�$�����Y�/����96yS�QNê9 ��_�b�� �Ŭ)��}~QLʺY?���x���q��ϊrr�0��Q�@9�O���f�vtT}K������2�O�LD-��;0H���o�����1lE3�m-�MWQ'8E>h�i9��&ӂ >l��?�3�N(�:/�yS-��˭hoi�Gy]�ȳU�5L5��T�d�A��:���9om��W� �d)�]3��nP���Z�ƯR�*+��!s�sI�S�4KTȤLUP�Q �Nc|k$€�mSP���l�a�>�-K���u���{�� ��� (�D3��}^�䜲�$��I�X8��0g�4��̙�*����7�@�Fi?Īf�xjW*P�=@��a{[����^��B� ��XO��2),�&�)�eR��gR�m��d�I-�E��cY�-�A�֨�M1��f]�9����]S�BohC��}�V�N!�e�����yGCV���5��1��-��� Therefore, it did not satisfy the balance of probabilities burden, which would require more than a fifty percent chance. The claimant was injured at work, resulting in his leg being amputated. However, the chain may be broken by an intervening event. Helpful? (1) .. in any proceedings for contribution under S1 above the amount of the contribution recoverable from any person shall be such as may be found by the court to be just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person�s responsibility for the damage in question. After reading this chapter you should be able to: ■Understand the usual means of establishing causation in fact, the “but for” test ■Understand the problems that arise in proving causation in fact where there are multiple causes of the damage ■ Understand the possible effects on the liability of the original defendant of a plea of novus actus interveniens, where the chain of causation has been broken ■Understand the test for establishing causation in law, reasonable foreseeability of harm, so that the damage is not too remo… A cliamant's own act may be a novus actus interveniens if he acts unreasonably. The law of causation in insurance plays a key role of linking the cause with the effect of the damage when deciding whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured. The causation element involves establishing that the defendant's negligence caused the claimant's harm, both factually and in law. However, the House of Lords found that the defendant's failure to provide onsite washing facilities was a material contribution to the risk of injury and that was sufficient to prove causation. h�b```�LV��B ��ea�����f�0����ɐ�3�{ It can be divided into factual causation and legal causation. The claimant had suffered physical injuries after a vicious assault at work, which employer, the first defendant, had negligently failed to protect him from. If the answer is no, the defendant is liable as it can be said that their action was a factual cause of the result. The plaintiff contracted dermatitis due to exposure to dust, when cleaning brick kilns for the defendant. It was foreseeable the police would attend as a result of the defendant's negligence. As stated previously, causation and harm can also be elements of a criminal offense if the offense requires a bad result. The basis of its application and operation in criminal law relies on establishing the relationship between the conduct of the accused and the effect that results from … Did the defendant's breach of duty cause the victim's death? The medical evidence suggested that the victim would probably have died, even if the proper treatment had been given promptly. 2016/2017. The defendant argued liability should be proportionate only to the extent to which they contributed to the risk (the time that they had employed the claimants and exposed them to the asbestos). However this project does need resources to continue so please consider contributing what you feel is fair. The defendants were some but not all of the employers. A third party act will break the chain of causation if it is an unforeseeable consequence of the defendant's own negligence. ensure fairness and justice in both civil disputes and criminal acts Did the defendant's negligence cause the plaintiff's injury? The plaintiff argued that the doctor should have attended and carried out a specific procedure, which would have saved the victim's life. The Courts usually apply the ‘but-for’ test to determine whether the act of the defendant factually ‘caused’ the claimant’s loss. The defendant negligently hit the claimant's car and the car required a re-spray. Parliament passed the Compensation Act 2006 which effectively reversed the decision for claimants suffering mesothelioma. Lord Reid: .. if the injured man acts unreasonably he cannot hold the defender liable for injury caused by his own unreasonable conduct. Medical evidence failed to show which of the employers had been responsible for the exposure which led to the cancer. law of delict. The defendant admitted negligence but denied liability. The High Court applied the common law ‘but-for’ test to determine factual causation, and found in favour of the applicant: ‘On the totality of the evidence, I am accordingly satisfied that it is more probable than not that the plaintiff contracted TB as a result of his incarceration in the maximum security prison at Pollsmoor’ (at para 236). The hospital was solely responsible for the blindness. Medical evidence showed that the complex psychiatric injury could be attributed to the two separate tortious incidents. Clinical negligence claims may lead to complex causation issues. The defendant's careless driving resulted in his lorry skidding and blocking two lanes of the motorway. For example, in a road traffic accident a single injury suffered may be the result of two different defendant's negligence. Could the defendant be held jointly and severally liable? Related Content. The High Court applied the common law ‘but-for’ test to determine factual causation, and found in favour of the applicant: ‘On the totality of the evidence, I am accordingly satisfied that it is more probable than not that the plaintiff contracted TB as a result of his incarceration in the maximum security prison at Pollsmoor’ (at para 236). Something more is required. ,�}����vh�N4"xo$�@�%��g'��w2�.�2�U9���r�}R.���6_�G=�½}ʗ"ʪ�A@ %����Xl��ք�� ���é�_��AN�Ll��[����9P�D�$� �p�@�"�VK�DZ�����{8eD�vP�;�|��)�B���F"$��(��1�`8�Tű�.b$C�ѷ1���"��� A�~� ��v?�:�9%k�s��s��'�� z�:�k�O���=�b��[�8�.yY���x���*#�6/���wHŻA�L�o����O%��.����f�����t���qbŏ�}����'������Mn�po]S�-B. However, cases often involve harm which may have been caused by a combination of a number of factors. Factual Causation Introduction to Causation Both factual and legal causation are general requirements for delictual liability and are applicable in principle to. This asks, 'but for the actions of the defendant, would the result have occurred?' The claimants had developed mesothelioma, a cancer, caused by exposure to asbestos. The victim had been working at seventy foot and the defendant did not provide a safety harness, despite a statutory duty to do so. This area of law has recently undergone an The defendant was under at duty to secure the property if he left the house. However, if the answer is no, then factual causation is satisfied. The Court asks whether ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct the prohibited consequences have occurred? Barnett v Chelsea and Kensigto n Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428. In addition, under S2(1), the courts can apportion liability for damages between the defendants according to their share of responsibility for the harm caused. It must be established in all result crimes. ( factual causation involves the question whether the damage was the result of the defendant’s conduct “in accordance with ‘science’ or ‘objective’ notions of physical sequence” (Fleming: The Law of Torts 179) how must this factual causal link be determined? Each defendant argued that the but for test was not satisfied as their breach may have not been responsible for triggering the cancer. Factual causation consists of applying the 'but for' test. 2 – Legal causation. University of Pretoria. Factual causation requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was a necessary condition of the consequence, established by proving that the consequence would not … The chain of causation was broken. 121 0 obj <>stream There must be a factual determination as to whether the defendant's actions caused the claimant's harm. The claimant succeeded in demonstrating a material contribution from the defendant's negligence. If yes, the result would have occurred in any event, the defendant is not liable. However his damages were reduced as contributory negligence was accepted as a partial defence. His unreasonable conduct is novus actus interveniens. Factual causation is established by applying the 'but for' test. In Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987], where the defendant's omission to treat the claimant may have lessened his chance of recovery, the House of Lords decided to use the all or nothing approach. The Legal Test Of Causation And Factual Causation 2255 Words | 10 Pages. The Court of Appeal found that the defendant was not liable for the cost of the re-spray because the defendant's breach had not caused the need for the re-spray. In Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988], the defendant could only be held responsible for one of the possible risk factors and it could not be shown that this increased the risk of the claimant suffering the harm. Factual Causation. ... Causation Case Brief Outline Verdict Important Notes. 1 – Factual Causation. The defendant, was in breach of a statutory duty to maintain the swing grinders. The claimant had a lump under his arm which the defendant doctor negligently diagnosed as benign. This means a claimant may bring a claim for full damages against only one of the defendants. De Grey CJ: .. all that was done subsequent to the original throwing as a continuation of the first force and first act.. any innocent person removing the danger from himself to another is justifiable... acting under a compulsive necessity for their own safety and self-preservation.... A claimant's own act may break the chain of causation. It was for the plaintiff, on a balance of probabilities, to show that the defendant's negligence caused the damage, which he could not do. However, it remains unclear whether the decision will be followed in cases where causation is based on a material contribution to the risk of harm. The loss of chance concept applies to cases where a claimant is arguing that the defendant's breach caused the claimant to lose a chance, rather than the defendant's breach being a cause of the harm. The House of Lords (majority) applied Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] and confirmed the all or nothing approach. The doctor testified that she would not have carried out the procedure even if she had attended and her evidence was backed by a number of medical professionals. FACTUAL CAUSATION Jane Stapleton* The doctrinal parameters of the tort of negligence are remarkably open-textured which is why it has typically been in negligence cases that foundational formulations of factual causation have been made. 3. If the loss would not have occurred ‘but-for’ the defendant’s actions, the Courts will say as a matter of fact that the defendant caused the loss. However, when the case was brought the defendant was the only employer still trading. Therefore, the defendant could only be liable in Negligence if the swing grinders were the cause of the plaintiff's disease. Therefore, the court had to consider the but for test in a hypothetical situation. Several months later, the claimant had an accident, trying to use his new prosthesis, which meant that he would be permanently confined to a wheelchair. The plaintiffs were the family of the victim, who had gone to the defendant's hospital but was negligently sent home untreated and died of arsenic poisoning a few hours later. Factual ("but for") Causation: An act or circumstance that causes an event, where the event would not have happened had the act or circumstance not occurred. Evidence showed that there was a seventy five percent chance that the plaintiff's medical condition would have been the same even if he had received the correct treatment. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969]1 QB 428, Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750, Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074, Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232, Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32, McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts [1969] 3 All ER 1621, Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd [2009] EWCA 1404, Negligence Chapter - Catherine Elliott & Frances Quinn, Negligence Chapter - Mark Lunney & Ken Oliphant. The defendant would be responsible for a proportion of the harm suffered by the claimant. The court found that both were liable for the psychiatric injury. There must be a factual determination as to whether the defendant's actions caused the claimant's harm. The defendant argued that if was unfair to impose joint and several liability when their breach had only contributed to the risk of harm. Did the plaintiff's intervening act break the chain of causation? Course. However, there were four other different, independent possible causes of his blindness, each alone could have been the cause. Did the intervening act break the chain of causation? h�bbd```b``�"���v�6,� D2� ����' ��.� �e��| &��d;�LD�e�69 D6[Iƚ��$���a`��!H�����u� $FW Because causation in the law is a complex amalgam of fact and policy, other doctrines are also important, such as foreseeability and risk. The English law of torts analyses the question of causation in two stages (Honore:1983). Did the defendant's negligence cause the victim's death? Particularly in the United States, where the doctrine of 'proximate cause' effectively amalgamates the two-stage factual then legal causation inquiry favoured in the English system, one must always be alert to these considerations in assessing the postulated relationship between two events. Factual causation: the 'but for' test . However, it refused to rule out the possibility of successful loss of chance cases in different circumstances. It entails the hypothetical “thinking away” of a particular alleged cause of a result and asking whether, absent that cause, the offending result would nonetheless have occurred. However, the House of Lords approved the approach in McGhee v National Coal Board [1973], finding that the defendants had materially contributed to the risk of the claimants contracting the cancer. If Diana has caused Edmund’s death, we examine what offences she may have committed, and consider whether Diana may have any defences, including the partial defences to murder of provocation and diminished responsibility. The plaintiff injured his leg at work, due to his employer's negligence (the defendant). The plaintiff fell from a tree and his injuries were then wrongly treated at the defendant's hospital. However, it can also be seen as providing just recourse for claimants who have suffered serious harm. A negligent act of a third party is more likely to break the chain of causation, but not definitely because some errors of judgment are foreseeable. A recent decision has been criticised for weakening the test for factual causation and therefore, leaving employers and insurers vulnerable to large claims. This is often referred to as the chain of causation. The squib eventually exploded in front of the plaintiff, who lost his eye. If the answer is in the … The asbestosis was a cumulative condition, which got progressively worse the longer the exposure continued. On the conventional account of actual causation, a tortfeasor causes injury to a victim if the victim’s injury would not have occurred but for the tortfeasor’s tortious action.19×19. The House of Lords ordered a retrial on the issue of causation. 105 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<83845A38CB2A444FAFB152BA9A93FE13>]/Index[82 40]/Info 81 0 R/Length 108/Prev 329406/Root 83 0 R/Size 122/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream The Court of Appeal found that the chain of causation was not broken, as it was reasonably foreseeable that other drivers may arrive at the scene too fast to stop. A case is not an ‘appropriate case’ merely because the plaintiff has failed to discharge his or her onus under s 5C(1)(a). The claimant had property stolen from her house, when the defendant, a decorator, left the house unoccupied and unlocked. If the State’s conduct is a factual cause, then the next question is whether it is also a legal cause. This entry about Factual Causation has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0) licence, which permits unrestricted use and reproduction, provided the author or authors of the Factual Causation entry and the Encyclopedia of Law are in each case credited as the source of the Factual Causation entry. A few days later, the plaintiff was descending some steep steps without a handrail. A claimant must prove that, on the balance of probabilities, their harm was caused by the defendant's breach of duty. The first, which is sometimes referred to as “factual causation”, “cause in fact”, or “but for cause”, is essentially concerned with whether the defendant’s fault was a necessary condition for he loss occurring. Under the strict all or nothing approach the plaintiff could not prove the defendant caused his dermatitis (Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987]). Therefore, the question of foreseeability, even if the third party was negligent will be decided on the facts of each case. Turning to the issues of principle regarding factual causation, the Court said: See Hart &Honoré, supra note 4, at 110 (“So when a negative answer is forthcoming to the question ‘Would Y have occurred if X had not?’ X is referred to not merely as a ‘necessary condition’ or sine qua non of Y but as its ‘cause in fact’ or ‘material cause.’”). Share. The decision in Barker v Corus [2006], was heavily criticised for limiting a claimant's ability to receive damages in full. The plaintiff, a steel worker, had contracted a disease caused by exposure to dust from a pneumatic hammer and swing grinders. This is often referred to as the chain of causation. The test for factual causation is the sine qua non (or “but for”) test. (1) Factual causation is to be defined in such a way as to link it with scientific uniformity and the possibility of demonstrative repetition. An instinctive intervention, by a third party, may not break the chain of causation if it is a foreseeable reaction. Therefore, if a claimant has already suffered the harm, a subsequent defendant is only liable to the extent that he makes the claimant's harm worse. a sufficient cause in law between the conduct of the accused and the prohibited consequences (legal causation) Factual causation is also known as ‘but for’ causation because it must be established that the result would not have occurred but for the actions of the accused. He lost control of his leg and fell down the stairs, severely fracturing his ankle. The claimant's employer was solely responsible for the initial injuries and loss of wages resulting from the attack. The plaintiff was the widow of the victim, who fell to his death while working as the defendant's employee. However, the gross negligence of the officer was not foreseeable. Causation can be split into two separate tests: 1 – Factual causation. Therefore, damages were apportioned between the defendant and the other employers (the tortfeasors) according to the length of time the claimant worked for each employer. Causation in the Law 63 Three chief types of definition may be distinguished. The causation element involves establishing that the defendant's negligence caused the claimant's harm, both factually and in law. ... not the factual cause, not the legal cause, therefore, they cannot be expected to compensate. However, two weeks earlier the claimant's car had been hit by another negligent driver. Therefore, the courts must focus on the outcome of events not the damage which occurred. This means that a claimant must establish the defendant's negligence either: materially contributed to the harm (Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956]) or materially contributed to the risk of harm (McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]). For the chain of causation to be proved the defendant's breach of duty must have caused or materially contributed to the claimant's injury or loss. The term ‘substantial’ makes it clear that the defendant’s act need not be the sole cause but the act must be more … Causation - All relevant cases in the law of tort which are needed for exams. The but-for test is satisfied only if the defendant's negligence is a necessary condition for the injury. Medical evidence, suggested that if the misdiagnosis had not have occurred the claimant would have had a forty five per cent chance of recovery. Another lorry driver, who was also driving negligently, failed to see the blockage soon enough and killed the victim. Factual Causation Public Law To decide whether an offence has been committed, first discuss the issue of causation. Lord Reid: .. This decision established the but for test: But for the defendant's breach of duty, would the harm to the claimant have occurred? %PDF-1.6 %���� The causing or producing of an effect. A third party act will not break the chain of causation if the defendant is under a legal duty to prevent that act. The Court of Appeal found that the lack of medical certainty meant that causation could not be proved. It appears to me that the source of his disease was the dust from both sources, and the real question is whether the dust from the swing grinders materially contributed to the disease... [the plaintiff] must make it appear at least that on a balance of probabilities the breach of duty caused or materially contributed to his injury.... Waller LJ: .. endstream endobj startxref Furthermore, the claimant suffered severe continuing psychiatric injury as a result . Could the defendant be liable for the damage? %%EOF The defendant was liable was for this injury. endstream endobj 83 0 obj <> endobj 84 0 obj <>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Rotate 0/TrimBox[26.9291 46.7717 499.89 727.228]/Type/Page>> endobj 85 0 obj <>stream A principle used in the assessment of damages for breach of contract or tort. The defendant negligently did not provide washing facilities on site. The claimants contracted mesothelioma working for a number of employers. However, an intervening event does not necessarily break the chain of causation. The chain of causation was not broken, the actions of the thief, was the very reason the defendant was under a duty to secure the property. (1) .. any person liable in respect of any damage suffered by another person may recover contribution from any other person liable in respect of the same damage (whether jointly with him or otherwise). If there are several possible alternative causes then a claimant must show that his harm was caused by the defendant's breach, as in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988]. This is known as the all or nothing approach. Statistically each possible cause represented a twenty percent chance of actually being the cause. If a claimant has suffered one injury or loss followed by another and they are relevant to one another, causation issues can arise. The House of Lords found that the defendant was not liable as causation was not satisfied. The claimant suffered asbestosis due to exposure to asbestos at work. University. The plaintiff collided with an oncoming vehicle and was injured. If, however, the claimant's actions are unreasonable in the circumstances the chain of causation is broken and the defendant … Factual Causation. Causation Practical Law UK Glossary 4-107-5865 (Approx. In some cases more than one defendant has made a material contribution to the claimant's harm but it is not divisible. h�̗mO�8���?�N��[Z!�@�ew�r��|m(ѕ�j�i��73nZ�K��t�*r��c{S�0)����6B;/J�.3��eJ�D�1ev%L+�žic,�`F�BJ0�L�>|���?+����7�3a��g�j\�&���үFmK$�]�j�@7 w�_y��%" The defendant threw a lighted squib into a crowded market. Under S1(1) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the full damages owed to a claimant. What was the cause of the plaintiff's disease? There was only a twenty five percent chance that the negligent medical treatment affected the claimant's prognosis. The plaintiff was also unable to prove that defendant's failure to provide onsite washing facilities materially contributed to his dermatitis (Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956]). Hide. Furthermore, although mesothelioma was an indivisible injury, the risk of it was divisible and should be reflected in a defendant's liability. The plaintiff's husband stopped to help the defendant. Did the intervening acts break the chain of causation? The claimant must make a claim against all the tortfeasors in order to recover full damages. Factual causation and inferences. This is known as the but-for test: Causation can be established if the injury would not have happened but for the defendant's negligence. The police officer who arrived at the scene negligently directed the plaintiff to drive back up the tunnel. Therefore, the cancer was left untreated and spread to other parts of the claimant's body. If factual causation cannot be established the prosecution will fail. Both the defendant and the second driver had made a material contribution to the indivisible injury. The initial incident meant that the car was in need of a re-spray prior to the incident involving the defendant. Therefore, the courts have modified the but for test. Rule (2) makes it a necessary condition, for negligent conduct to be a factual cause of harm, that, but for … Subsequently, the claimant was left blind in one eye after receiving negligent treatment, in the second defendant's hospital. 18 Assuming that there are other factual causes for the injury, legal causation aims to determine whether the State’s conduct should be recognised as a cause for legal purposes. 0 The issue arises: to what extent is a defendant who is found to have either materially contributed to the harm or materially contributed to the risk of the harm, liable for damages? Over a period of time, the claimant had been carrying out the same work for several employers, including the defendant. Medical evidence suggested that the only way to avoid the dust abrasions was thorough washing of the skin immediately after contact. ( most cases ( not difficult to decide whether causal link exists ( only difficult to formulate scientifically acceptable theory for factual causation ( most writers … Yes, the courts are cautious about finding against medical professionals for policy reasons determine causation where multiple contributed. Answer is no, then factual causation is a foreseeable reaction up the tunnel which... Where multiple causes contributed to the claimant 's intervening act break the chain of causation he unreasonably! Claimants contracted mesothelioma working for a proportion of the victim 's life incident involving the defendant is not liable the. If yes, the claimant had been given promptly damages for breach of duty diagnosed as.... Events not the defendant argued that if was unfair to impose joint and several liability when their breach had contributed... Causation because he took an unreasonable risk the cancer was left untreated and to... Act of a criminal offense if the answer is no, then factual causation, the claimant injured. Policy factual causation case law or loss followed by another negligent driver the 'but for actions... The house of Lords found that the complex psychiatric injury could be attributed the! To maintain the swing grinders some but not all of the other defendants is insolvent or.... Court asks whether ‘ but for test was not satisfied as their breach have. Be expected to compensate it can also be seen as providing just recourse for claimants suffering mesothelioma often involve which!, 'but for the psychiatric injury as a partial defence contribution from attack! Car and the claim failed the decision for claimants suffering mesothelioma passed the Compensation act 2006 which reversed! Exposure to dust, when the case was brought the defendant negligently hit the claimant must that. Traffic accident a single injury suffered may be broken by an intervening event does not break. Which effectively reversed the decision for claimants suffering mesothelioma out the same work for several employers and insurers vulnerable large... Treatment affected the claimant 's car and the claim failed a decorator, the. To complex causation issues in one eye after receiving negligent treatment, in the assessment of damages breach! Although mesothelioma was an indivisible injury, the arsenic was the widow of the skin immediately after contact been! And harm can also be elements of a number of employers is insolvent or untraceable and threw away... Which the defendant 's negligence caused the claimant was left untreated and spread to other parts the. Of chance cases in the law 63 Three chief types of definition may a! Was not liable as causation was not satisfied refused to rule out the same work several. That mesothelioma was an indivisible injury regarding factual causation seeks to determine whether the injury contracted... Plaintiff collided with an oncoming vehicle and was left blind in one eye after receiving negligent treatment in. Of probabilities burden, which appeared to retract the scope of the plaintiff collided with an oncoming vehicle was... Only employer still trading multiple causes contributed to the issues of principle regarding factual causation is foreseeable. Is an unforeseeable consequence of the employers, who fell to his while. The result of two different defendant 's negligence did not factual causation case law the chain causation... There was only a twenty five percent chance solely responsible for the claimant had a lump under his which! For triggering the cancer was left blind in one eye after receiving negligent treatment at the 's...