Test factual causation and multiple causes
Use the but-for counterfactual, then distinguish proved contribution from special risk-based exceptions.
Section 4.1.4 · Tort causation and remoteness
Exam scope and assessment notes
A Level · section 4.1.4. Original educational scenarios about the law of England and Wales, checked on 14 October 2026. Model answers are formative reasoning, not advice about a real dispute, Cambridge marks or predicted grades. Read the exact statute, case and exam-year source where a rule is disputed or changes. A larger annotated authority bank, full unseen papers and specialist law-teacher review remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read a short source carefully and separate its rule from the facts
- Explain which element a fact supports and what is still uncertain
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
What should a legal problem answer connect?
What you will learn
- Apply factual causation on the civil standard
- Compare multiple sufficient causes, material contribution and exceptional risk reasoning
Construct the counterfactual
The usual factual question is whether, on the balance of probabilities, the relevant harm would have occurred but for the breach. Barnett illustrates how negligent conduct may fail to cause a death that proper care would not have prevented. Identify the correct breach and outcome rather than ask whether the defendant was generally present.
Evidence such as timing, expert analysis and alternative causes supports the counterfactual. A breach and later injury are not by themselves a causal link. Separate pre-existing harm from additional harm attributable to the breach, and do not claim an invented medical probability from a short scenario.
Use exceptional approaches with their conditions
Where several factors cumulatively produce injury, material contribution to the damage can matter, illustrated by Bonnington. A negligible contribution differs from a legally material one. Independent causes, divisible damage and uncertainty require their own analysis; not every case is solved by equal division between defendants.
Fairchild's exceptional material-increase-in-risk approach addressed particular causal uncertainty involving the same harmful agent and disease. It is not the ordinary rule for every uncertain injury or every increased statistical risk. Explain which authority permits departure from but-for proof and why its conditions apply; increasing risk and contributing to actual damage are not identical concepts.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Does proving breach automatically prove that it caused the claimed damage?
Worked example
For a fictional exercise, reliable evidence stipulates that the same damage would have occurred even with the required precaution and no exception applies. Does breach alone prove causation?
Show the worked solution
- Identify the precaution counterfactual.
- The stipulated damage is unchanged.
- Apply but-for proof rather than breach alone.
Answer The stipulated facts do not establish but-for causation of that damage. Breach may be proved, but negligence liability for this loss still lacks the necessary causal connection; the exercise expressly excludes an alternative exception.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Apply the stipulated counterfactual in the example.
Give me a hint
Use the outcome with proper care.
Compare my reasoning
- Assume the required precaution is taken.
- The same damage still occurs.
- No alternative exception is stated.
On these facts the ordinary but-for link is absent because proper care would not change the damage. A breach conclusion cannot supply the separate causal requirement.
Look for these in your work
- Uses counterfactual
- Uses unchanged outcome
- Separates elements
Independent: Two exposures cumulatively contribute to proved damage, with one negligently created contribution stipulated as material. Which distinction matters?
Give me a hint
Contribution to damage is not merely risk.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify cumulative damage.
- Use the proved material contribution.
- Assess the relevant authority and loss scope.
A proved material contribution to cumulative damage can support the applicable contribution analysis. That is different from merely showing a higher statistical risk, and the precise authority and recoverable damage still matter.
Look for these in your work
- Uses cumulative facts
- Uses actual contribution
- Separates risk
Application: A learner says every increased accident risk establishes causation under Fairchild. Correct the reasoning.
Give me a hint
Exceptions require their conditions.
Compare my reasoning
- Start with ordinary causal proof.
- Identify the exceptional authority's context.
- Require its conditions rather than a generic statistic.
Fairchild does not turn every increased risk into proof of every injury. A claimant must establish the ordinary causal link or a genuinely applicable exception with its specific conditions; a general risk statistic is insufficient alone.
Look for these in your work
- States starting rule
- Limits exception
- Rejects generic substitution
Common mistakes
- Equating sequence with causation
- Confusing contribution and increased risk
- Using Fairchild for every uncertainty
What can you explain now?
Does proving breach automatically prove that it caused the claimed damage?
Compare with the explanation
No
The counterfactual or a properly applicable alternative causation rule still needs proof.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Does proving breach automatically prove that it caused the claimed damage?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.