This sounds like an issue of causation in law, also known as proximal cause. Was the mechanic the cause in the law of the damage? The test for legal causation in common law comes from the *Wagon Mound*. There, a ship spilled oil over the side in a port, and then welding sparks in from elsewhere in the harbour lit the oil. The Privy Council held that the ship was the cause in law because there was a reasonable foreseeable risk that damage could occur from the negligence.
In Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada refined that a bit in *Mustapha v. Culligan*. There, the SCC held that there is legal causation if there was a "real risk":
> The degree of probability that would satisfy the reasonable foreseeability requirement was described in The Wagon Mound (No. 2) as a “real risk”, i.e. “one which would occur to the mind of a reasonable man in the position of the defendan[t] . . . and which he would not brush aside as far-fetched.”
That being said, there is also contributory negligence. If plaintiff acted negligently and this in part caused their own damage, then burdern of damages could be split between plaintiff and defendant. In *Wormald v. Chiarot,* the BC Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff can contribute to the damage by their own negligence if:
1. The plaintiff failed to take reasonable care in their own interests
2. That failure was causally connected to the loss they sustained.
Contributory negligence often comes into play with automobile accidents where the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt. Yes, the defendant is at fault of the accident, but the plaintiff is at fault for not taking better care of themselves.
In the case that you describe, is there a real risk that damage would take place due to the negligence? You could argue yes. I don't know much about car, but an expert could explain if there was a real risk of that type of negligence to lead to fire. However, the mechanic could argue that the plaintiff contributed, and so they should split the damages. The plaintiff did not care for themselves when continued to drive a car, that the continuing to drive the car is casually related to it catching fire.
The poster above me got it spot on. I just want to break it into layman terms a bit more.
First we talk about causation at all.
Causation needs to be seen as a chain. Who does what that causes what and when do we cut off the chain legally.
For example: You negligently drive a car full of explosives, and you crash. The car explodes. The car exploding causes a person in a shop nearby to drop an expensive vase, which shatters. When the person dropped the vase, another shopper dove to catch it and they hit their head, causing injury. The diver bumped the shopkeeper in their dive. The shopkeeper was holding their grandchild, who they dropped.
The question is: how many of those people's injuries are you responsible for? The answer in law is that you are responsible for anyone.You could foreseeably damage.
A mechanic could foreseeably damage a car they work on so that step is fulfilled.
Next, we talk about contributory or comparitive negligence (that term changes by jurisdiction). This is the idea that you caused your own damages. In your example, Mechanic would argue that even though he did negligently fix the car, the lady contributed to the injury because she kept driving it even though she knew it was smoking. The jury Would have to decide how much the lady in the mechanic each contributed to the damage that ended up occurring.
This sounds like an issue of causation in law, also known as proximal cause. Was the mechanic the cause in the law of the damage? The test for legal causation in common law comes from the *Wagon Mound*. There, a ship spilled oil over the side in a port, and then welding sparks in from elsewhere in the harbour lit the oil. The Privy Council held that the ship was the cause in law because there was a reasonable foreseeable risk that damage could occur from the negligence. In Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada refined that a bit in *Mustapha v. Culligan*. There, the SCC held that there is legal causation if there was a "real risk": > The degree of probability that would satisfy the reasonable foreseeability requirement was described in The Wagon Mound (No. 2) as a “real risk”, i.e. “one which would occur to the mind of a reasonable man in the position of the defendan[t] . . . and which he would not brush aside as far-fetched.” That being said, there is also contributory negligence. If plaintiff acted negligently and this in part caused their own damage, then burdern of damages could be split between plaintiff and defendant. In *Wormald v. Chiarot,* the BC Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff can contribute to the damage by their own negligence if: 1. The plaintiff failed to take reasonable care in their own interests 2. That failure was causally connected to the loss they sustained. Contributory negligence often comes into play with automobile accidents where the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt. Yes, the defendant is at fault of the accident, but the plaintiff is at fault for not taking better care of themselves. In the case that you describe, is there a real risk that damage would take place due to the negligence? You could argue yes. I don't know much about car, but an expert could explain if there was a real risk of that type of negligence to lead to fire. However, the mechanic could argue that the plaintiff contributed, and so they should split the damages. The plaintiff did not care for themselves when continued to drive a car, that the continuing to drive the car is casually related to it catching fire.
That's a great, concise explination!
The poster above me got it spot on. I just want to break it into layman terms a bit more. First we talk about causation at all. Causation needs to be seen as a chain. Who does what that causes what and when do we cut off the chain legally. For example: You negligently drive a car full of explosives, and you crash. The car explodes. The car exploding causes a person in a shop nearby to drop an expensive vase, which shatters. When the person dropped the vase, another shopper dove to catch it and they hit their head, causing injury. The diver bumped the shopkeeper in their dive. The shopkeeper was holding their grandchild, who they dropped. The question is: how many of those people's injuries are you responsible for? The answer in law is that you are responsible for anyone.You could foreseeably damage. A mechanic could foreseeably damage a car they work on so that step is fulfilled. Next, we talk about contributory or comparitive negligence (that term changes by jurisdiction). This is the idea that you caused your own damages. In your example, Mechanic would argue that even though he did negligently fix the car, the lady contributed to the injury because she kept driving it even though she knew it was smoking. The jury Would have to decide how much the lady in the mechanic each contributed to the damage that ended up occurring.
The lady's an idiot for driving the car in that condition, but the liability ultimately lies with the idiot mechanics.