Barnett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

[1969] 1 Queen's Bench 428Queen's Bench Division (England)1969Law of Torts

Rule established

The but-for test requires proof that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach; where the harm was inevitable regardless, factual causation is not established.

Facts

The patient, suffering from arsenic poisoning, presented at the defendant hospital. Hospital staff sent him away without proper examination, a clear breach of the duty of care owed. The patient subsequently died. Evidence showed that even with proper examination and treatment, given how far the poisoning had progressed, he would have died regardless.

Issue

Whether a hospital's clear breach of duty in failing to properly examine a patient was the factual cause of the patient's subsequent death.

Held

The but-for test requires proof that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach. The evidence established that death would have occurred even with proper examination and treatment, given the advanced state of the poisoning. The breach, though clear, was not the factual cause of death. The claim failed on causation, despite the undisputed breach of duty.

Ratio Decidendi

Establishing breach of duty alone does not complete a negligence claim; the plaintiff must additionally prove that the specific breach actually caused the harm suffered, applying the but-for test. Where the harm was inevitable regardless of the breach, causation is not established, however clearly wrongful the breach itself was.

How to use it in an exam

Key line: "In Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969), the court held that a hospital's clear breach was not the factual cause of death, since death would have occurred regardless given the poisoning's advanced stage."
Use to illustrate that breach of duty and factual causation are analytically distinct requirements, both of which must be independently satisfied.

Source

Source: [1969] 1 QB 428

This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.

Cited in study notes

Law of TortsNegligence Causation and Remoteness of DamageIllustrates that a clear breach of duty does not establish liability absent proof the breach actually caused the harm