Williams v Bermuda Hospitals Board
The material contribution principle in Bonnington applies where the defendant's negligence contributed to an indivisible injury along with other non negligent causes acting together.
Facts
Mr Williams went to hospital in Bermuda with acute appendicitis. Because of negligent delay in carrying out a CT scan and operating, his appendix ruptured, and he developed sepsis, which caused damage to his heart and lungs. The sepsis had begun developing before the negligent delay, and continued during it, so the negligence had added to a process that had already started. The trial judge held that he had not proved causation.
Legal principle
The Privy Council held that the hospital was liable. Lord Toulson said that, applying Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw, where the negligent delay made a material contribution to the injury, together with the non negligent progression of the disease acting cumulatively, the claimant is entitled to succeed. It made no difference whether the causes operated concurrently or successively, as long as they combined to cause the injury. The case is not an exception to the ordinary rules of causation like Fairchild, but an application of the established principle of material contribution.
Related cases on causation
- Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467
- Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20, [2006] 2 AC 572
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428
- Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
- Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41, [2005] 1 AC 134
- Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32
- Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2, [2005] 2 AC 176
- Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
