damage

Question 1

barnett v chelsea & kensington hospital

BUT FOR test for negligence

Answer 1

C went to hospital complaining of stomach pain and vomiting, C died due to arsenic poisoning, doctor didn’t examined him but nothing wouldve prevented his death, hospital not liable

Would claimant not have suffered harm but for defendants negligence

Question 2

wagon mound

only liable TYPE OF DAMAGE that is foreseeable, all other damage is too remote

Answer 2

• fuel oil spilt, spread to C’s wharf where wielding repairs were being carried out
• 2 days later, oil caught fire, burnt down claimants wharf
• oil being split was foreseeable but damage was not

Question 3

hughes v lord advocate

you do not have to predict the exact way the injury will occur

Answer 3

• workmen left manhole unattended, lamp by pole, claimant was an 8 year old boy, knocked one of the lamps into hole, this caused an explosion which badly burnt claimant
• foreseeable child might explore a site and break a lamp
• injury foreseeable but not explosion itself

Question 4

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

you do not have to predict the precise nature as long as it’s foreseeable

Answer 4

C required to take an old van to somewhere from employer, had to do this in an extremely cold winter- drove with windows open, left C with frostbite
- Injury was unusual but any cold related injury would suffice

Question 5

smith v leech brain

thin skull rule, take your victim as you find them

Answer 5

• man was burnt by metal in factory, man already had precancerous condition, the burn brought out the onset of full cancer and man died
• Burn was for seeable but because of thin skull rule the defendant was liable for the man’s death

Question 6

structure of damage

Answer 6

1. BUT FOR TEST- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

2. Type of damage that is foreseeable; then remoteness of this damage - Wagon Mound