Oxford BA: Breach, Causation & Remoteness Exam Paper

Dr. Sarah, a consultant surgeon, operates on Peter's damaged knee following a football injury. During the operation, Sarah fails to notice and remove a small bone fragment, contrary to standard surgical practice. Three weeks later, Peter develops severe complications requiring emergency surgery. However, medical evidence reveals that Peter suffers from an extremely rare genetic condition (affecting 1 in 100,000 people) that causes abnormal bone healing, making complications inevitable regardless of surgical competence. Peter also admits he ignored post-operative instructions by playing football two days after surgery, which Sarah claims contributed to his complications. Peter now suffers permanent mobility issues and seeks damages of £200,000 for lost earnings as a professional footballer, plus £50,000 for pain and suffering. Medical experts disagree whether the bone fragment, genetic condition, or premature return to sport was the primary cause of Peter's injuries. Advise Peter on his prospects of success in negligence.

Critically evaluate whether the current approach to legal causation and remoteness in negligence adequately balances the competing demands of compensating victims and limiting defendants' liability to reasonable bounds.

Amanda, a professional chef, suffers severe burns to her hands when a pressure cooker explodes at Delicious Deli due to a defective safety valve. The manufacturer, KitchenPro Ltd, knew of three similar incidents in the past year but issued no recall. Amanda's burns heal poorly because she continues working (needing income for her sick mother's care) against medical advice. Six months later, Amanda develops chronic pain syndrome, a rare condition affecting 2% of burn victims. Expert evidence shows that proper rest would have prevented this syndrome in 95% of cases. Amanda also suffers depression, having lost confidence in cooking and fearing her career is over. She was previously treated for anxiety disorders. KitchenPro argues that Amanda's decision to continue working was unreasonable and broke the causal chain. Amanda seeks damages for her physical injuries (£15,000), loss of earnings (£80,000), chronic pain treatment (£25,000), and psychiatric harm (£10,000). Advise Amanda on the likely success of her claim.

To what extent has the development of the 'material contribution' test in cases like Fairchild v Glenhaven undermined the coherence of causation principles in negligence law?