FLK1 · Tort

Negligence — causation & remoteness

SQE1 revision notes — the key rules, leading cases and common traps for this topic, in plain English and current to 2026.

TOR.03 — Negligence: Causation & Remoteness

Once duty and breach are established, the claimant must prove the breach caused the damage and that the damage is not too remote. Both are required.

Factual causation — the "but for" test

Ask: but for the defendant's breach, would the harm have occurred? If it would have happened anyway, causation fails.

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC — negligent A&E doctor not liable; the patient would have died of arsenic poisoning regardless.

Multiple/uncertain causes — the exceptions

Material contribution: where breach materially contributed to a single indivisible injury, "but for" is relaxed — Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw; Bailey v MoD.
Material increase in risk: in industrial-disease cases where science cannot pinpoint the cause, materially increasing the risk suffices — McGhee v NCB; Fairchild v Glenhaven (mesothelioma). Note Compensation Act 2006 s.3 — joint and several liability for mesothelioma.
Loss of a chance generally fails in clinical negligence — Gregg v Scott (chance reduced below 50%, no recovery).

Legal causation — breaking the chain (novus actus interveniens)

A new intervening act can break the chain:

Third-party act — must be truly independent/unforeseeable.
Claimant's own conduct — if highly unreasonable — McKew v Holland (vs reasonable response in Wieland v Cyril Lord).
Act of nature — if unforeseeable.

Remoteness — reasonable foreseeability of type of damage

The Wagon Mound (No 1) replaced the old direct-consequence test (Re Polemis): damage must be of a reasonably foreseeable type.
Extent/manner need not be foreseeable — Hughes v Lord Advocate (type foreseeable, extent need not be); Bradford v Robinson Rentals.
Thin/eggshell skull rule: take the victim as you find them — Smith v Leech Brain. Foreseeability of type of injury is enough; its severity (due to the claimant's vulnerability) is irrelevant.

Common SBAQ traps

Don't confuse the two stages — factual causation ("but for") is separate from remoteness (foreseeable type).
The exceptions (material contribution / increased risk) are narrow — default is "but for".
Type vs extent: the type of harm must be foreseeable; the precise way it happened and its scale need not be.
Eggshell skull applies to physical and psychiatric harm, not just "egg shell personalities" — and it presupposes some foreseeable injury first.
A foreseeable intervening act does not break the chain.

Try a real SQE1 question

Straight from the bank. Answer it, then see the worked reasoning and the tutor — no signup to try.

A man is a front-seat passenger in a car driven by a friend. The friend drives negligently and collides with another vehicle. The man was not wearing his seatbelt. Medical evidence establishes that had he worn the seatbelt his injuries would have been substantially less severe, though he would still have suffered some injury from the impact. The man sues his friend in negligence. Liability for the collision is admitted. The defendant argues that the man's damages should be reduced because of his failure to wear a seatbelt.

Before you book a £1,934 exam

Strong on this topic? SQE1 tests 137 of them — and 59% failed in July 2025. See where you stand across all of them, free.

✓An AI tutor on every question that already knows the answer — the part nothing else has
✓5 full mock papers at real exam pace, plus unlimited drilling — no daily cap
✓The whole 2,000+ bank, verified and source-cited to the law, all 137 areas
✓Your weak-spot map: exactly where you’re losing marks

Start my free diagnostic — one tap →

Free. No card. 25 questions, about 15 minutes. Full SQE1 courses run £1,500–£4,000 — this starts at £0.