Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee
[1969] 1 QB 428
판결 이유
Even where a defendant owes a duty of care and is in breach of that duty, the claimant must still prove factual causation — that 'but for' the breach, the damage would not have occurred. If the claimant would have suffered the same harm regardless of the breach, the claim fails on causation.
사실관계
Three night watchmen attended the casualty department of the defendant's hospital, complaining of vomiting after drinking tea. The casualty officer, Dr Banerjee, did not examine them but told them to see their own doctors. One of the men, Mr Barnett, died a few hours later from arsenic poisoning. His widow sued the hospital for negligence.
판결 요약
Nield J held that the hospital was in breach of its duty of care — the casualty officer should have examined the men. However, the claim failed on causation. The evidence showed that even if Mr Barnett had been examined and treated promptly, he would still have died because the arsenic poisoning was too advanced for any treatment to have saved him. The 'but for' test was not satisfied.
주요 인용문
"Without doubt the casualty officer should have seen and examined the deceased. His failure to do so was negligent. It remains to consider whether it has been established that the deceased's death was caused by that negligence or whether the deceased would have died in any event."
— Nield J
후속 처리
The leading authority on the 'but for' test of factual causation in negligence. Consistently cited in tort law textbooks and applied in subsequent cases on causation.