Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968]
Share
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 2 WLR 422 is a crucial English tort law case that examines the application of the "but for" test of causation. This test is central to determining whether a breach of duty by a defendant directly led to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The case highlights the importance of establishing causation in negligence claims and illustrates how courts assess whether a breach of duty was a significant contributing factor to the harm caused.
On the morning of January 1, 1966, three night-watchmen visited the emergency department of the Chelsea & Kensington Hospital after one of them, Mr Barnett, had been struck on the head with an iron bar by an intruder. They had initially visited the hospital at around 4 a.m. due to symptoms of vomiting that began after drinking tea. After speaking to a nurse, the casualty officer, Dr Banerjee, advised the nurse over the phone that they should return home and consult their own doctors. Mr Barnett later died from arsenic poisoning, approximately five hours after their visit. Mrs Barnett subsequently sued the hospital for negligence, arguing that the refusal to admit and treat Mr. Barnett contributed to his death.
The court held that the hospital was not liable for Mr Barnett’s death. The key issue was whether the hospital's breach of duty—failing to admit and treat Mr Barnett—was the cause of his death. The judge determined that even if Mr Barnett had been admitted and treated promptly, it is unlikely that he would have received the antidote in time to prevent his death from arsenic poisoning. Thus, the breach of duty by the hospital did not meet the "but for" test of causation.
In other words, the court found that the hospital’s failure to treat Mr Barnett was not the factual cause of his death because the treatment would not have altered the outcome. The principle established in this case is that a breach of duty does not lead to liability if it cannot be shown that, but for the breach, the harm would have been avoided. This case underscores that, in negligence claims, it is essential to demonstrate that the breach was a direct and significant factor in causing the alleged harm.
On the morning of January 1, 1966, three night-watchmen visited the emergency department of the Chelsea & Kensington Hospital after one of them, Mr Barnett, had been struck on the head with an iron bar by an intruder. They had initially visited the hospital at around 4 a.m. due to symptoms of vomiting that began after drinking tea. After speaking to a nurse, the casualty officer, Dr Banerjee, advised the nurse over the phone that they should return home and consult their own doctors. Mr Barnett later died from arsenic poisoning, approximately five hours after their visit. Mrs Barnett subsequently sued the hospital for negligence, arguing that the refusal to admit and treat Mr. Barnett contributed to his death.
The court held that the hospital was not liable for Mr Barnett’s death. The key issue was whether the hospital's breach of duty—failing to admit and treat Mr Barnett—was the cause of his death. The judge determined that even if Mr Barnett had been admitted and treated promptly, it is unlikely that he would have received the antidote in time to prevent his death from arsenic poisoning. Thus, the breach of duty by the hospital did not meet the "but for" test of causation.
In other words, the court found that the hospital’s failure to treat Mr Barnett was not the factual cause of his death because the treatment would not have altered the outcome. The principle established in this case is that a breach of duty does not lead to liability if it cannot be shown that, but for the breach, the harm would have been avoided. This case underscores that, in negligence claims, it is essential to demonstrate that the breach was a direct and significant factor in causing the alleged harm.
