Damage

Question 1

What is remoteness of damage

Answer 1

Both factual and legal causation

Question 2

Factual causation

Answer 2

Satisfied if the damage suffered by c would not have occurred “but for” D’s breach of duty (Barnett v KCH)

Question 3

Legal causation

Answer 3

D will only be liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote (The Wagon Mound No.1)

Question 4

Intervening acts

Answer 4

An intervening act of the clament (McKew v Holland)
An intervening act of nature, which is unforeseeable and independent of D’s own negligence (CS Co v RNG)
An intervening act of a third party which was such magnitude it breaks chain of causation (knightly v Johns).

Question 5

Intervening act of claimant

Answer 5

McKew v Holland

Question 6

Intervening act of nature

Answer 6

CS Co v RNG

Question 7

Intervening act of a third party

Answer 7

Knightly v Johns

Question 8

What are the 3 situations where legal causation can be satisfied even when not reasonably foreseeable

Answer 8

Type of damage caused
Sequence of event
Egg shell / thin skull rule

Question 9

Type of damage caused

Answer 9

If the general type of damage caused is reasonably foreseeable then it does not matter if the precise type of damage was not (Bradford v Robinson Rentals)

Question 10

Sequence of events

Answer 10

If the type of damage that results from c’s breach of duty is reasonably foreseeable, it does not matter if the exact sequence of events reading to the damage is not (Hughes v Lord Advocate)

Question 11

Egg shell rule

Answer 11

As long as some damage is foreseeable, D will be liable for its full extent, even if this could not be foreseen. This also applied t property damage (Smith v Leech Brain)