damage

Question 1

what is a damage

Answer 1

is an injury tht the claiment has suffered with, remedy you get when a claim is unsuccessful

Question 2

what is factual causation

Answer 2

‘but for test’ shows whether the injury would have happened if the efendant did do thst act.

Question 3

which cases relates to the but for test

Answer 3

barnett v chelsea and knesigton hospital management committee
knightly v johns

Question 4

what happend in the barent v chelesea case relating to the but for test

Answer 4

went to a and e department, complaining of being sick drinking a cup of tea, the doctor didnt examine them and recommended they went hone, one of the men went home and died a few hours later from arsenic poising, he was owed a duty of care from the doctor and from the not doctor not examinng them he broke his duty

Question 5

what happened in the knightly v johns case relating to the but for test

Answer 5

johns caused a crash, the police at the scence should of closed the tunnel but forgot, knightly then rode bacj against the traffic he was involved ina seperate crash and was injured. the second crash broke the chain of causation, meaning that mt johns was not liable for the injuries in the second crash

Question 6

what does remoteness of damge mean

Answer 6

is if the damage was not resonably foreseeable then it means that the defendant will not be held responsible, this means the damge is said to be remote

Question 7

what case relates to remoteness of damage

Answer 7

wagon mound

Question 8

what happens in the case wagon mound relating to remotness of damage

Answer 8

oild had been negligently spilled from the defendant boat into the sea in sydney harbor, the wind caused the spill toward the claiment wharf, the oil cauht fire due to the sparks , the fire spread and brunt the claiments wharf, the oil spill was reasonbaly forseeable, the fire was not therefore was too remote to give liability

Question 9

what does type of damage mean

Answer 9

if the type of damage is forseeable the actual damage can be extreme

Question 10

what case shows the type of damage

Answer 10

bradford v robinson rentals

Question 11

what happened in the bradford v robinson rentals case related to type of damage

Answer 11

claiment was sent by his boss to drive a long distance to exchange vans in extrme cold weather, none of the vans werre heated an as a resukt if this he suffered from frost bite it was foreseen in this case that that could be the outcome

Question 12

what is the think skull rule

Answer 12

assumes that everyone an everything is different in a case

Question 13

what case related to the thin skull rule

Answer 13

smith v leech brain

Question 14

what ahppens in the case smith v leech brain relating to the thin skull rule

Answer 14

a man brunt his lip on molten metal he had pre cancerous condition, the burn brought about the onset of full cancer, and he died, the company was liable to compenstate for his death, as they take their victim as they found him

Question 15

whqt does unknown to science mean

Answer 15

if the damage isnt resonably forseeable if the incident occurred because of an unknown event

Question 16

what case relates ot unkown to science

Answer 16

doughty v turner

Question 17

what happens in the case doughty v turner relating to unkown sceicne

Answer 17

molten sodium cynaide was knocked into a cauldron, the claiment was injured, because the cauldron erupted, using the unknown sciecen rule then there was knowledge of a small explosion, not an extreme one meaning that cliam was failed

Question 18

what is the res ipsa loquitur rule

Answer 18

that it is up to the clianent to prove that the defendant was negligent, in some situations it is difficult for the claiment to know what has happened.

Question 19

what two things need to proved in the res ipsa loquitor rule

Answer 19

if the defendant was n control of the situation that caused the injury is more likely than not caused by negligence

Question 20

what is the case relating to res ipsa loquitor

Answer 20

smith v london docks

Question 21

what happens in the case smith v london docks relating to res ipsa loquitor

Answer 21

claiment was hit with 6 bags of sugar which fell from the defendatns warehouse, the claiment did not know what casued the bags to fall, the court found that it was under control by the defendant, therefore in this case the claimant didnt not have to prove negligence and it was up to the defendant to prove otherwise, the result of this case was that the defendant couldn’t prove otherwise, and the claimant got their compensation.