Barnett v Chelsea Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428

KEY POINTS

• The "but-for" test of causation asks whether, "but for" the defendant's negligence, the claimant's harm would have occurred. In other words, would the harm have occurred if the defendant had acted with reasonable care?

• There was proximity since Plaintiff had presented himself at Defendant’s hospital, and that Defendant was negligent in not treating him.

• However, it was not proven that on the balance of probabilities Plaintiff’s negligence caused Defendant’s death, since he might have died anyway if he had been admitted to the hospital. 

FACTS

• The facts of the case involved three night watchmen who fell ill after drinking tea laced with arsenic at the hospital's staff canteen. They were taken to the hospital's casualty department for treatment, but the doctor on duty failed to examine them thoroughly and simply sent them home.

• One of the men died later that night from arsenic poisoning. However, it was unclear that even if he had been admitted to the hospital he would have survived.

• The deceased’s widow sued for negligence.

COMMENTARY

• This case established an important principle in negligence law – the "but-for" causation test. It is a straightforward and widely applied test that helps determine the defendant's liability for the claimant's harm. 

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Plaintiff drank some tea which had been laced with arsenic and he presented himself at Defendant’s hospital since he was vomiting. Defendant told him to leave and call his own doctor. Plaintiff died, but it was unclear that even if he had been admitted to the hospital he would have survived.

• Plaintiff’s widow sued for negligence.

• The court held that there was proximity since Plaintiff had presented himself at Defendant’s hospital, and that Defendant was negligent in not treating him.

  • However it was not proven that on the balance of probabilities Plaintiff’s negligence caused Defendant’s death, since he might have died anyway if he had been admitted to hospital.