Causation and Remoteness of Damage

Question 1

What is damage?

Answer 1

Damage is a legal concept that determines whether the defendant’s breach of duty of care lead to the injury or property damage

Question 2

What is factual causation?

Answer 2

The breach of duty of care has caused the damage

Question 3

What needs to be proved for a claim to succeed?

Answer 3

Both factual causation and remoteness of damage

Question 4

How is factual causation decided?

Answer 4

The ‘but for test’

Question 5

What is the ‘but for’ test?

Answer 5

‘But for’ the defendant’s act or omission, the injury or damage wouldn’t have occurred

Question 6

What happened in Barnet v Chelsea Kensington?

Answer 6

Three night watchmen fell ill after drinking tea from a fourth man. A duty doctor over the phone recommended that they go home and see their own doctor. They had been poisoned and one died. The hospital was sued and the doctor was accused of being negligent. Duty of care and breach of duty were both proved.

However, evidence proved that it was already too late to save the mans life at the hospital and the negligence did not cause the death. The claim failed

Question 7

What is ‘novus actus interveniens’?

Answer 7

An intervening act or omission that breaks the chain of causation

Question 8

What is the chain of causation?

Answer 8

The link of the act or omission and the damage

Question 9

What happens when the chain of causation is broken?

Answer 9

The defendant will no longer be liable

Question 10

What is remoteness of damage?

Answer 10

It must be shown that the damage is not too remote from the negligence of the defendant

Question 11

What was held in the Wagon Mound?

Answer 11

It was held that although damage caused to the claimant’s warf was reasonably foreseeable, the way that it happened was not. The type of damage was too remote

Question 12

Will the defendant be liable if the type of injury was foreseeable even if the way that it happened was not?

Answer 12

Yes

Question 13

What was held in Hughes v Lord Advocate?

Answer 13

It was held that it was reasonably foreseeable that the lamp would be knocked and cause burning, and that the site would be explored. However, the explosion was not foreseeable. The defendant was held liable

Question 14

What was held in Bradford v Robinson Rentals?

Answer 14

It was held that the employer owed a duty and that it was breached, despite injuries being sustained in an unusual way

Question 15

What is the eggshell skull rule?

Answer 15

‘Take your victim as you find them’, if the damage is reasonably foreseeable but is made more serious due to a pre-existing condition, the defendant is liable for all the consequences

Question 16

What was held in Smith v Leech Brain?

Answer 16

It was held that the burn was reasonably foreseeable and due to the eggshell skull rule, the defendant was liable for the man’s death