Legal Case Summary
Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 402
TORT – NEGLIGENCE – CAUSATION
Facts
The claimant was a factory worker who died when he had an epileptic seizure while working on a platform with no railings over 20 feet above the ground. His employers were not aware of his condition, nor of the fact that his doctor had told him not to work at heights. The claimant’s partner sued the defendant employers in the tort of negligence.
Issue
Establishing negligence involves proving that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, breached this duty of care, and that the breach caused the harm. It was clear in this case that a duty was owed and had been breached due to the absence of any railings. However, the defendant argued that the absence of railings did not cause his death, but rather the epilepsy did. As the defendant did not cause the epilepsy, they argued they did not cause the death.
The issue in this case was how causation is established in the tort of negligence.
Decision / Outcome
The Court of Appeal held the defendant liable.
The Court set out the test for establishing causation. If the harm would not have occurred but for the breach of duty, the breach has caused the harm in the sense required by the tort of negligence. If the harm would have occurred anyway even if the defendant had not been in breach, the breach is not a cause of the harm.
In this case, had appropriate railings been installed, the claimant would not have not fallen off the platform while having the seizure. The defendant’s breach therefore caused the accident. The claimant’s damages were reduced to reflect his contributory negligence in failing to inform his employers of his condition, however.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 402 is still regularly cited as an early and clear statement of the ‘but for’ test for factual causation in negligence, and the legal principles described in the article continue to represent good law. The ‘but for’ test has since been extensively developed and qualified by later cases, most notably Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 (material contribution to risk in mesothelioma cases), Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20, and Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] UKSC 10. Students should be aware that these later authorities recognise that the strict ‘but for’ test may not always apply, particularly in cases of multiple causation or indeterminate causation. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 continues to govern contributory negligence as described. The article is a sound introduction to the case but should be read alongside the wider body of causation law when studying the topic in full.
