Editing Negligence (section)

====Factual causation (actual cause)====
{{See also|Causation in English law|Breaking the chain}}

For a defendant to be held [[Legal liability|liable]], it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained.<ref name="Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez">''Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez'' (1976) 10 [[Australian Law Reports|ALR]] 303; (1976) 50 [[Australian Law Journal Reports|ALJR]] 720 [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=10+alr+303 LawCite records].</ref> Although the notion sounds simple, the causation between one's breach of duty and the harm that results to another can at times be very complicated. The basic test is to ask whether the injury would have occurred "but for", or without, the accused party's breach of the duty owed to the injured party.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|48|2009|litigants=Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem |parallelcite= |courtname=auto |date=}}; {{cite AustLII|HCA|5|2012|litigants=Strong v Woolworths |parallelcite=(2012) 246 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 182 |courtname=auto |date=}};</ref><ref name="March v Stramare">{{cite AustLII|HCA|12|1991|litigants=[[March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd]]|parallelcite=(1991) 171 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 506 |courtname=auto |date=}}.</ref><ref name="Wallace v Kam">{{cite AustLII|HCA|19|2013|litigants=Wallace v Kam |parallelcite= |courtname=auto |date=}}.</ref> In Australia, the High Court has held that the "but for" test is not the exclusive test of causation because it cannot address a situation where there is more than one cause of damage.<ref name="March v Stramare"/> When "but for" test is not satisfied and the case is an exceptional one, a commonsense test ("Whether and Why" test) will be applied<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|NSW|act|cla2002161|Civil Liability Act 2005|5d}}(2).</ref> Even more precisely, if a breaching party materially increases the risk of harm to another, then the breaching party can be sued to the value of harm that he caused.

Asbestos litigations which have been ongoing for decades revolve around the issue of causation. Interwoven with the simple idea of a party causing harm to another are issues on [[insurance]] bills and compensations, which sometimes drove compensating companies out of business.