damage Flashcards
what are the factors of damages
factual causation
intervening acts
thin skull rule
remoteness of damage
what is factual causation
use but for test
barnett v chelsea & kensington hospital management committee- night watchman sick from drinking tea, phoned doctor but said to go home instead coming to examine them, arsenic poisoning and died, would have died anyways regardless of doctors actions, poisoning too far on, doctors breach hadnt caused damage
what is intervening acts
if something happens after incident makes situation worse d is still responsible unless serious and separate to what d did
knightly v johns- johns caused crash on bend in road tunnel, police shouldve closed tunnel to traffic but forgot to, ordered knightly to go back on motorbike against flow of traffic to close tunnel, involved in crash and injured, second crash broke chain of causation so johns not liable for injures knightly
what is thin skull rule
d must take their victim as they find them
smith v leech brain- c struck on lip by piece of molten metal, precancerous skin condition and died of cancer triggered by burn, burn would not have killed anyone else company responsible
what is remoteness of damage
c must prove specific type of damage suffered reasonably foreseeable
must be proved TYPE damage suffered foreseeable
wagon mound no.1- negligent oil spill from d tanker floated sydney harbour, sparks welding ignited some oil and set fire to wharf, d not liable, type of damage not foreseeable
hughes v lord advocate- d erected tent over manhole and surrounded tent with paraffin lamps, 10yo c dropped lamps down hole, explosion and c badly burnt, burns expected from leaving paraffin lamps in open, sufficient even though burns happened as result of explosion
evaluation for thin skull rule
+ beneficial for claimants injured worse than others wouldve been
+ ensures can claim full extent of injuries
+ allow them to be back in position they were prior to accident
+ beneficial for society
+ promotes high standards
- unfair on d who unaware of conditions c have
- cant put precautions in place to protect them
what is res ispa loquitur
presumed incident was result of d negligence s d must prove not negligent
scott v london & st katherine docks co- customs officer passing warehouse and six bags sugar fell onto him from crane, both crane and sacks of sugar under sole control of warehouse, sacks of sugar dont fall from cranes unless someone has been negligent, not other reason why incident shouldve occurred
what is used to prove res ipsa loquitur
thing that caused damage was under sole control of d
incident is one which wouldnt have happened unless someone had been negligent
there is no other obvious reason why incident occurred
