Tort - Damage

Question 1

Damage

Answer 1

The claimant must be able to prove that they have suffered damage, damage was caused by the D and damage is not too remote.
The claimant must prove that the damage suffered was caused by the breach of duty.
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital 1969- night watchman went to hospital after drinking tea, they were sent away after not being examined, one died. Arsenic poisoning - duty of care had been proved and have doctor breached that duty but it wasn’t the direct link to the death as it had already been proved that it was too late

Question 2

Remoteness of damage

Answer 2

The wagon mound 1961 - oil had been negligently spilt in the harbour 2 days before and had dissipated
Welding work meant that it set alight and spread to the claimants ward and burnt it down
It was decided that it wasn’t reasonable foreseeable as it was too remote
Thin skull rule - take your victim as you find them - smith v leech 1962 - he was burnt with molten metal. Unbeknown to the B he had a pre cancerous condition - still liable.

Question 3

Remoteness of damage- type of injury foreseeable

Answer 3

D will be liable if the type of injury was foreseeable even though the praise way it happened was not.
Hughes v Lord advocate 1963 - manhole cover left open and paraffin lamp left nearby, the claimant a 8 year old boy climbed in the hole, knocked the lamp- explosions and badly burnt
Boy was able to claim for injuries as it was reasonably foreseeable children might explore the site, - liable