Negligence: Damage

Question 1

What must the claimant prove?

Answer 1

The damage was caused by a breach of duty

Question 2

What are the two parts for establishing damage?

Answer 2

CIF
CIL

Question 3

What is causation in fact?

Answer 3

Factual causation
‘But for’ the defendant’s act or omission, harm wouldn’t have arisen

Question 4

What happened in Barnett v Chelsea abd Kensington HMC?

Answer 4

Hospital not liable, but for doctor’s omission, Mr Barnett would have died anyway

Question 5

1 - What is one problem with the but for test?

Answer 5

Only works effectively when there is one defendent and one cause of damage, when there are numerous people involved, difficult for jury to pinpoint
Leads to lengthy litigation and judicial creativity
Increased costs for all parties

Question 6

What is causation in law?

Answer 6

Legal causation
Damage mst not be too remote, therefore, reasonable foreseeable

Question 7

What case established the test for remoteness?

Answer 7

The Wagon Mound No.1

Question 8

What is the test around the type of injury?

Answer 8

Defendant will be liable if the type of injury was reasonable foreseeable even if the precise way in which the injury would occur was not

Question 9

What happened in Bradford v Robinson Rentals?

Answer 9

Frostbite was unusual but in cold weather it wasn’t so it was reasonably foreseeable and not too remote

Question 10

What happened in Doughty v Turner Asbestos?

Answer 10

Damage from molten liquid lid was too remote, not reasonably foreseeable that an explosion would occur

Question 11

What is a NAI?

Answer 11

An intervening act which breaks the chain of causation, so the defendant won’t be liable

Question 12

What are the different types of NAI?

Answer 12

Act of claimant
Act of nature
Act of third party

Question 13

What is a case for act of claimant?

Answer 13

Mckew v Hollands - climbing the stairs unaided was a NAI

Question 14

What is a case of act of nature?

Answer 14

Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norweighan Gov - Storm was a NAI, so the Carslogie was not liable for further damage

Question 15

What is a case for act of third party?

Answer 15

Knightly v Johns - the negligent order of a police officer couldn’t be reasonably foreseen and so it was a NAI, breaking the chain of causation

Question 16

1 - What is a negative for NAI’s?

Answer 16

Don’t provide consistent outcomes
Decided on a case by case basis

Question 17

What are eggshell conditions?

Answer 17

Defendant must take the claimant as they found them

Question 18

What happens if the claimant has a pre-existing condition?

Answer 18

The defendant will be liable for all subsequent consequences

Question 19

What happened in Smith v Leech Brain and Co?

Answer 19

A burn was reasonably foreseeable and because the man had an eggshell condition, defendant was liable for his death