The ‘but for’ test

Sanderson v Hall EWCA Civ 1211 5 November; SJ 11 November

The claimant had contracted an infection while working for the defendants as a turkey plucker. She was provided with gloves and aprons, but a few days later she started to work without gloves. She alleged that she had been infected by the bacteria, because the defendants had failed to protect her from the risks of infection that were inherent in handling dead poultry. Experts agreed that the only route by which the bacteria could have entered the claimant’s body was by her mouth. The trial judge found the defendants had been negligent and had breached several statutory duties. Although the claimant had failed to prove that, but for the defendant’s negligence, she would probably not have contracted the infection, the judge held that it was impossible for her to satisfy the test and accordingly the exception to the ‘but for’ test applied and the claimant had established the causal link between breaches of duty and injury by showing that the breaches had materially increased the risk of infection.