7th July 25 | Personal Injury Law

Breaks in the Chain of Causation: What It Means for Medical Negligence and Accident Claims

At Hopkins Solicitors, our personal injury team frequently handles claims arising from accidents at work and medical negligence. A crucial legal hurdle in these cases is proving “causation”, the link between the defendant’s negligence and the harm you (the claimant) suffered.

But what happens if something else occurs after the initial injury that worsens your condition? Could this break the chain of causation and affect your claim? Understanding breaks in the chain of causation is essential to know your rights and how Hopkins can help you secure the compensation you deserve.

What is a Break in the Chain of Causation?

In law, causation means showing that your injury was caused by someone else’s negligence. But sometimes, an intervening event occurs after the initial accident or medical error. This event might be:

Further medical treatment,
A third party’s actions,
Or even your own choices.

The court will ask:

Was the intervening act foreseeable?
Was it voluntary or independent of the Defendant’s original breach?
Did it fall within the risk created by the defendant’s original negligence or was the new act the primary cause of the harm?

If the court decides this event is so significant that it breaks the chain linking the original wrongdoing to your injury, your claim might be reduced or dismissed.

Medical Negligence and Chain of Causation

Medical negligence can sometimes follow workplace accidents, for example, when you receive treatment after an injury at work. But what if the treatment itself causes further harm?

Webb v Barclays Bank plc (2001)

In this key case, Mrs Webb injured her knee while working at Barclays Bank. A surgeon advised her to have her leg amputated, but this advice turned out to be negligent and there were other, better treatment options available.

Barclays argued that the amputation broke the link between the original accident and her later condition. In other words, they claimed they were no longer responsible for Mrs Webb’s permanent condition and shouldn’t be held responsible for the harm caused by poor medical advice.

But the Court of Appeal disagreed. It ruled that the poor medical treatment did not break the chain of causation. Barclays was still found liable for the injury because it was their negligence that started the chain of events. However, the court also found that the NHS Trust involved in the faulty treatment should share some of the blame and contribute to the damages.

The key legal point: medical negligence only breaks the chain of causation if it’s so unexpected and severe that it becomes the main cause of the injury.

Jenkinson v Hertfordshire County Council (2023)

More recently, Mr Jenkinson seriously injured his ankle after stepping into an open manhole. The council accepted it was at fault for the accident (breach of duty was admitted), but there was disagreement over how much of his long-term damage was caused by the accident itself versus the medical treatment that followed.

Mr Jenkinson had surgery on his ankle, but the council’s medical expert argued the surgery was done negligently, making the injury worse than it should have been. According to the expert, Mr Jenkinson could have mostly recovered from the original injury, but due to the poor medical treatment, he ended up needing six more operations.

The council asked the court for permission to change its defence, arguing that the hospital’s negligence, not the original accident, was to blame for Mr Jenkinson’s long-term condition. They also wanted to involve the NHS Trust responsible for the treatment.

The High Court looked back at the Webb case and other earlier rulings. It rejected the idea that there is a legal rule stating medical negligence always breaks the chain. The court warned against creating such a rule, as it would lead to too many side arguments about whether treatment was bad enough to count as an entirely new cause of harm.

Two Opposing Views on What Breaks the Chain of Causation

The Continuity View (like in Webb)
This view says that as long as the later harm is linked to the original injury, even poor medical care won’t break the chain. It tends to favour injured claimants and holds the original wrongdoer accountable for the full extent of harm.
The Severance View (argued in Jenkinson)
This view says that if something truly separate or unpredictable happens, like grossly negligent medical care or a deliberate act, it can break the chain, meaning the original wrongdoer is no longer responsible.

The differing outcomes highlight how fact-sensitive these decisions are and how differently courts may interpret intervening acts, especially where multiple defendants or third parties are involved.

Grossly negligent treatment by a hospital or the deliberate wrongdoing of a third party may break the chain, but courts are often reluctant to find that standard negligence does.

How Hopkins Solicitors Can Support You

At Hopkins Solicitors, we know how important it is to prove the link between your workplace injury and any subsequent medical errors. We carefully investigate all treatment records to ensure you’re compensated not only for the original injury but also for any worsened condition caused by negligent healthcare.

If you’ve been injured at work or suffered due to medical negligence, don’t let complicated legal issues like breaks in the chain of causation stand in your way. At Hopkins Solicitors, our personal injury team has the experience and dedication to help prove your claim and secure the compensation you deserve.

Request a Callback