Yates v Jones

A Summary of Yates v Jones (1990)

Case name & citation: Yates v Jones (1990) Aust. Tort Reports 81

Yates v Jones (1990) is a tort law case dealing with the concept of causation and how it is applied to determine liability for damages in a legal context.

Given below are the case details:

Facts of the case (Yates v Jones)

The plaintiff, Yates, was involved in a car accident as a result of the defendant, Jones. Yates got injured due to the accident. When recovering from her injuries, a friend of Yates offered her heroin to help her deal with the pain. Yates then developed an addiction to heroin. She sued Jones claiming damages that involved the costs of her addition to heroin. It was contended that her addiction was a consequence of the car accident which was caused by Jones’s negligence.

Court’s decision in Yates v Jones

In giving the decision, the Court examined whether there was a direct causal link between Jones’s breach of duty (the car accident) and Yates’s heroin addiction. It was held that the car accident wasn’t the direct cause of her addiction. Instead, it was the introduction of heroin by her acquaintance that played a vital role in causing the addiction.

Although the accident created the circumstances for the events to unfold, the friend’s suggestion to use heroin was an intervening event that broke the direct link between the accident and the addiction.

Hence, due to the lack of causation established by the Court, Yates was not awarded damages for the costs of her heroin addiction. Jones’s negligence did not lead to the addiction. Also, the addiction was not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the car accident caused by Jones’s negligence.

General concept

The key principle in the law of negligence is causation. When seeking damages, it is important that a direct causal connection between the defendant’s breach of duty and the plaintiff’s harm is established. To aid this, the “but for” test is often used to determine whether the defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in causing the harm. This test asks whether the harm would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s negligent actions. However, this test can have limitations, particularly when there might be multiple factors contributing to the harm.

Reasoning behind the decision

In the given case, the Court found that the car accident was not a substantial factor leading to Yates’s heroin addiction. Rather, it was the friend’s interference in the chain of causation that disrupted the link between the accident and the addiction.

List of references:


Wright v Cambridge Medical Group
Philips v Whiteley


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *