NEGLIGENCE

KEROSAKAN

02/16/22 1
Subtopik

• Sebab-musabab / causation in fact

• Had-had ujian ‘but for’
• Kesan perbuatan yang mengantara
• Kerosakan yang tidak terlalu jauh / remoteness of
damage / causation in law
• Rumusan

02/16/22 2
Sebab-musabab / causation in fact

• Mencari pertalian sebab-musabab antara

kerosakan / kecederaan yg ditanggung oleh
plaintif dgn perlanggaran tugas defendan
• Ujian yg digunakan – ‘but for test’

02/16/22 3
Samb.
• Soalan yg perlu ditanya ialah:
Jika defendan tidak melakukan perlanggaran
tugas, adakah plaintif akan mengalami
kecederaan / kerosakan?

But for the defendant’s breach of duty would

the plaintiff suffer the injury?

02/16/22 4
Samb.
Jawapan:

YA - tiada pertalian sebab-musabab

TIDAK - terdapat pertalian sebab-musabab

02/16/22 5
Samb.
CORK V. KIRBY MACLEAN LTD

Lord Denning: …if the damage would not have

happened but for a particular fault, then the
fault is the cause of the damage; if it would
have happened just the same, fault or no fault,
then the fault is not the cause of the damage.

02/16/22 6
Samb.

BARNETT V. CHELSEA & KENGSINGTON

HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITEE

ROBINSON V. POST OFFICE

[1947] 2 All ER 737

02/16/22 7
 Barnett’s Case
• 3 orang pengawal yg bertugas waktu malam telah
minum the. Tidak lama kemudian mereka muntah2
dan dihantar ke hospital. Nurse telefon doctor
bertugas beritahu tentang masalah lelaki2 itu.
Doktor tak dating utk memeriksa mereka tapi
menyuruh mereka balik dan berjumpa doctor
mereka sendiri. Tidak lama selepas itu salah seorang
daripada lelaki2 tersebut meninggal dunia akibat
arsenic poisoning

02/16/22 8
Has the Plaintiff established on the balance of
probabilities:
1)that the medical officer was negligent, and if so,
2)that such negligence caused the death of the deceased.
It was found that the Defendants were negligent and in
breach of their duty because they did not see, examine,
admit and treat the deceased.
However, was it the breach of duty by the defendants that
caused the death of the deceased OR the deceased would
have died in any event.

02/16/22 9
• Based on the facts of the case, the court
found that the deceased would still have died
even if he had been admitted to the hospital.
• The court held that the Plaintiff has failed to
establish on the balance of probabilities that
the Defendants’ negligence caused the death
of her husband.

02/16/22 10
• Abdul Ghafur bin Mohd Ibrahim v Pengarah,
Hospital Kepala Batas & Anor [2010] 6 MLJ –
• Failure to prove the causal link between the death of
the victim and the alleged negligence or delay in
sending the victim to Penang Hospital for the
neurosurgery.
• Whether there was delay or not, there was NO
PROSPECT OF saving the victim’s life as ‘subarachnoid
haemorrhage with cerebral aneurysm’ attracted
almost 100% mortality.
02/16/22 11
Samb.
BONINGGTON CASTING LTD V.
WARDLAW

HOL: plaintif tidak perlu membuktikan yg

perlanggaran tugas defendan penyebab utama /
penyebab tunggal penyakitnya itu. Adalah mencukupi
sekiranya plaintif dapat membuktikan atas imbangan
kebarangkalian yg munasabah bahawa perlanggaran
tugas defendan telah menyumbangkan secara
material terhadap penyakit yg dialaminya / has
materially contributed to the disease.
02/16/22 12
Samb.

MCGHEE V. NATIONAL COAL BOARD

Lord Salmond: the law does not require a pursuer or

plaintiff to prove the impossible, but hold that he is
entitled to damages for the injury if he proves on the
balance of probabilities that the breach / breaches of
duty contributed substantially to causing the injury.

02/16/22 13
Samb.
HOTSON V. EAST BERKSHIRE-AREA
HEALTH AUTHORITY

HOL tidak mengguna pakai prinsip kes MCGHEE

02/16/22 14
Samb.
WILSHER V. ESSEX AREA HEALTH
AUTHORITY

HOL affirmed that in all cases the plaintiff bears

the burden of proving on the balance of
probabilities that the damage was caused by
the negligence of the defendants

02/16/22 15
• The P had to prove that on the balance of
probabilities, the exposure to high levels of
oxygen was at least a material cause of the
blindness.

02/16/22 16
Samb. FAIRCHILD V. GLENHAVEN FUNERAL
SERVICES LTD
[2002] 3 All ER 305

Lord Nichollas: In the normal day, in order to recover damages for

negligence, a plaintiff must prove that but for the defendant’s
wrongful conduct he would not have sustained the harm or loss in
question. He must establish at least this degree of causal connection
between his damage and the defendant’s conduct before defendant
will be held responsible for the damage. Exceptionally this is not so. In
some circumstances a lesser degree of causal connection may suffice.
This sometimes occurs where the damage flowed from one or other of
the two alternative causes.

02/16/22 17
Samb.
CHEW SWEE HIANG V. AG OF
SINGAPORE

Mengikut keputusan kes WILSHER

Rajah J: The burden of proving causation rests on he
plaintiff…Where a number of different factors could
have caused the injury, there can be presumption
that one factor rather than the other factors caused
the injury

02/16/22 18
Samb.
SIVANATHAN V. THE GOVERNMENT
OF MALAYSIA & ANOR
[2000] 4 AMR 3767

Mengikut kes WILSHER

02/16/22 19
Had ujian ‘but for’
Dua perlanggaran tugas berturut-turut

PERFORMANCE CARS LTD V. ABRAHAM

BAKER V. WILLOUGHBY

JOBLING V. ASSOCIATED DAIRIES

02/16/22 20
Kesan perbuatan yg mengantara / novus actus
interveniens

• Perbuatan mengantara bertindak

memutuskan pertalian sebab-musabab antara
kerosakan / kecederaan yg dialamai oleh
plaintif dgn perlanggaran tugas defendan.

02/16/22 21
Samb.
• Tiga jenis perbuatan mengantara:
1. Perantaraan kejadian semulajadi

CARSLOGIE STEAMSHIP CO LTD

V. ROYAL NORWEDIAN GOVT

Isu: sama ada kerosakan yg disebabkan oleh

cuaca buruk itu telah memutuskan pertalian
sebab-musabab?
02/16/22 22
Samb.
2. Perantaraan pihak ketiga

LORD V. PACIFIC STEAM

NAVIGATION CO LTD

Isu: Sama ada kematian tersebut disebabkan oleh

kecuaian The Oropesa atau sama ada tindakan
kapten kapal Manchester Regimen telah
memutuskan pertalian sebab-musabab.
02/16/22 23
Samb.

Lord Wright: To break the chain of causation it

must be shown that there is something which
and will call ultraneous, something
unwarrantable, a new cause which disturbs
the sequence of events, something which can
be described as either unreasonable /
extraneous / extrinsic.

02/16/22 24
Samb.
3. Perantaraan plantif sendiri

MC KEW V. HOLLAND & HANNEN

AND CUBITTS (SCOTLAND)

02/16/22 25
Kerosakan yang tidak terlalu jauh / remoteness
of damage / causation in law

Diperingkat ini apa yang perlu ditentukan ialah

setakat mana defendan bertanggungan

02/16/22 26
Samb.
LIESBOSCH DREDGER V. S.S EDISON
Lord Wright: The law cannot take into account of everything
that follows a wrongful act; it regards some subsequent
matters as outside the scope of its selection, because it
were infinite for the law to judge the cause of cause /
consequence of consequence…In the varied web of
affairs, the law must abstract some consequences as
relevant, not perhaps on grounds of pure logic but simply
for practical reasons.

02/16/22 27
Samb.

Terdapat dua ujian:

1.Ujian ‘direct consequences’ / akibat langsung
2.Ujian ‘reasonable foreseeability’ / pralihat
secara munasabah

02/16/22 28
Samb.
Ujian akibat langsung – defendan akan dikenakan
tanggungan terhadap semua kerosakan yg berlaku
secara langsung akibat drpd kecuaian defendan

LIESBOSCH DREDGER V. S.S

EDISON
Lord Wright: Direct consequences refer to the
immediate physical consequences of the negligent
act.

02/16/22 29
Samb.
RE POLEMIS
Scrutton LJ: To determine whether an act is negligent, it
is relevant to determine whether any reasonable
person would foresee that the act would cause
damage; if he would not, the act is not negligent. But
if the act would or might probably cause damage,
the fact that the damage in fact causes is not the
exact kind of damage one would expect is
immaterial, so long as the damage is in fact caused
sufficiently direct by the negligent act…
02/16/22 30
Samb.

• Ujian pralihat secara munasabah – defendan

bertanggungan bagi kerosakan yang boleh
dipralihat / dijangkakan secara munnasabah
sebagai akibat drpd kecuaiannya

02/16/22 31
Samb.
THE WAGON MOUND (NO 1)
Viscount Simonds: It is a principle of civil liability, subject only to
qualification which have no present relevance, that a man must be
considered to be responsible for the probable consequences of his
act. To demand more of him is too harsh a rule; to demand less is to
ignore that civilised order requires the observance of a minimum
standard of behavior…some limitation must be imposed on the
consequences for which the negligent actor is to be held responsible
– and all are agreed that some limitation there must be – why
should that test (reasonable foresee ability) be rejected which, since
he is judged by what the reasonable man ought to foresee…

02/16/22 32
• Dalam kes Wagon Mound ini mahkamah guna
ujian “reasonable foreseeability”.
• Ia adalah berasaskan prinsip:
• 1. kerosakan yg berlaku adalah boleh
diramalkan sbg akibat perbuatan D
• 2. jenis kerosakan yg berlaku mestilah yg
boleh diramalkan wp risiko mengalami
kerosakan sedemikian adalah kecil.

02/16/22 33
Samb.

• Re Polemis v. The Wagon Mound

The Wagon Mound lebih

diikuti sama ada di England / Malaysia

02/16/22 34
• Govt of Malaysia v Jumat,
• Isu2nya:
• 1.samada risiko/kecederaan boleh dipralihat.
• 2. jika ya, samada D telah mengambil langkah
munasabah utk melindungi P(mengelakkan
kecederaan)
• 3.samada kecederaan adalah ‘casually related’
kepada kecuaian guru(kurang penyeliaan)
02/16/22 35
• Mahkamah:-
• tugas berhati-hati guru mestilah seimbang
dengan peluang dan kebolehannya untuk
melindungi murid daripada bahaya yg
diketahui atau patut dibimbangkan.
• Ia adalah tugas utk berhati-hati secara
munasabah atas keselamatan murid.
• Ia tidak dapat dipralihat oleh guru.

02/16/22 36
• Diputuskan bahawa kegagalan guru kelas
untuk mengawasi murid2nya semasa kejadian
bukan penyebab kecederaan P.

• Bezakan dengan kes Mohd. Raihan v Govt of

M’sia

02/16/22 37
Samb.

Prinsip am – defendan akan dikenakan tanggungan sekiranya

kerosakan / kecederaan yang berlaku itu adalah drpd jenis
yang boleh dipralihat.

BRADFORD V. ROBINSON RENTALS LTD

TREMAIN V. PIKE

02/16/22 38
• Dalam kes Bradford- P mengalami sejenis
kecederaan yg boleh diramalkan berpunca
dari cuaca yg melampau yg mana P terdedah
kepadanya semasa menjalankan tugas.
• D sebagai majikannya didapati liable terhadap
jenis kerosakan itu dpt diramalkan.

02/16/22 39
• Bandingkan dengan:
• Jenis penyakit yg dialami dan tahap risiko
penyakit itu dialami perlu dapat diramalkan
secara tepat.

• Lihat:

02/16/22 40
• TREMAIN V PIKE
• P telah mendapat Weil’s Disease akibat
kencing tikus.
• D diputuskan tidak bertanggungan kerana apa
yang dapat dipralihat oleh D adalah keracunan
akibat makan makanan yg telah tercemar oleh
tikus atau penyakit akibat gigitan tikus.

02/16/22 41
Keadaan-keadaan yang mana ujian pralihat
secara munasabah tidak terpakai
• Cara kerosakan berlaku
Prinsip am – apabila sesuatu jenis kerosakan itu
boleh dipralihat, cara bagaimana kerosakan
itu berlaku adalah tidak penting
HUGHES V. LORD ADVOCATE

02/16/22 42
• Dlm kes ini beberapa pekerja D telah
membiarkan sebuah lubang tidak bertutup dan
hanya sebuah khemah dipasang serta beberapa
buah lampu paraffin diletakkan keliling
khemah.
• Semasa pekerja pergi berehat P (seorang
kanak2)tlh turun ke dlm lubang. Lampu paraffin
terjatuh dan letupan berlaku(cara yg tak boleh
diramal)
02/16/22 43
• P cedera teruk akibat kebakaran(kecederaan
yg boleh diramal)

• D liable kerana kerosakan/kecederaan itu

boleh diramalkan.

02/16/22 44
Samb.
• Keluasan kerosakan
Prinsip am – a defendant must takes a victim
as he finds him

Egg shell skull / thin

skull rule
SMITH V. LEECH BRAIN & COMPANY

02/16/22 45
• P telah digajikan oleh D sebagai buruh dan
penyadur logam. Setitik molten metal(besi
cair) telah terkena bibir P dan menyebabkan
melecur yang tidak pulih
• P memang mempunyai kebarangkalian utk
mendapat kanser. 3 tahun kemudian P
meninggal dunia.

02/16/22 46
• Isu:
• Samada keadaan melecur dapat dipralihat sbg
satu risiko akibat dari pekerjaan P.
• Oleh kerana ia dpt dipralihat, D liable kerana
D mesti menerima P ‘as he finds him’.
• Lord Parker: Sebenarnya besi yg membakar
bibirnya adalah causation kpd merebaknya
kanser tisu.

02/16/22 47
Samb.
• Kerosakan kerana kemiskinan

LIESBOSCH DREDGER V. SS
EDISON

Hanya kerosakan yg dapat dipralihat akan berlaku

akibat kecuaian D dpt dituntut.
Kerosakan yg diakibatkan oleh kemiskinan P tidak
boleh dituntut.

02/16/22 48
• Dalam kes ini kapal korek P tenggelam akibat
kecuaian D. P mengalami kerugian kerana
terpaksa sewa kapal lain utk menyiapkan kerja
mengorek. P tidak mampu membeli kapal
lorek lain.
• Mahkamah: D tidak liable atas kerugian P
kerana ia akibat kemiskinan P sendiri.

02/16/22 49
• Apa yang penting adalah :
• 1)D boleh pralihat kecederaan atau kerosakan
yang akan berlaku akibat kecuaiannya.
• 2)Namun faktor-faktor lain juga (seperti
keluasan kerosakan dan cara kerosakan
berlaku)akan diambil kira oleh mahkamah
dalam memutuskan samada D adalah
bertanggungan ataupun tidak

02/16/22 50
 RUMUSAN
02/16/22 51