Damage

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

• C can claim for foreseeable personal/psychiatric injury or damage to property.
• Causation and remoteness need to be considered.

Question 2

Factual causation

But for test

Answer 2

But for test:
-But for Ds breach the damage would not have occurred. If it would have
happened anyway, there is no factual causation.
-Barnett: the man would have died regardless of the doctor’s failure to treat
him so there was no factual causation.

Question 3

Multiple Causes

Answer 3

-If other factors could have caused the result, D will only be liable if C can
prove D’s breach was the more than likely cause of the damage.
-Wilsher v Essex AHA: five factors may have caused Cs blindness so there was
no link between Ds actions and the damage.

Question 4

Legal Causation

Remoteness

Answer 4

• Legal causation applies the test of remoteness.
  -This means the damage C suffered must not be too remote from Ds actions, i.e. the damage was reasonably foreseeable by D otherwise it cannot be
  attributed to him.
  -The Wagon Mound: Ds ship leaked oil which spread a distance across the water where C was welding. A spark caused the oil to set alight and damage Cs wharf. This was not reasonably foreseeable by D and therefore too remote.

Question 5

Extent of damage

Answer 5

• Even if the extent (severity) of damage was unforeseeable, as long as some
  related type of injury could be foreseen, then the damage will not be too
  remote, and D will still be liable.
• Bradford v Robinson Rentals: the extent of injury (frost-bite) was unforeseeable, however, some cold related injury was reasonably foreseeable after C had to drive a van in very cold weather without heating and thus the frost bite was not too remote.

Question 6

Egg shell skull

Answer 6

Intervening acts will break the chain of causation unless the Egg Shell Skull Rule applies

• D must take C/property as found and will be liable for the end result if his negligent act caused damage that led to it.
• This also applies to rare/expensive property.

Question 7

Egg shell skull

Cases

Answer 7

• Smith v Leech Brain: C suffered a minor burn which developed into cancer. As D was responsible for the minor injury to C, he was also liable for the cancer.
• Corr v IBC Vehicles: C suffered a severe head injury at work. This brought on PTSD which led to deep depression (C did not have this before) and to C then committing suicide. D was liable for the initial injury and also for the suicide because there was no other cause of the depression and the chain did not break.