Damage

Question 1

Explain damage

Answer 1

The third part of any negligence claim is for the claimant to prove that the damage suffered was caused by the breach of duty and that the loss on damage isn’t too remote

Question 2

Explain factually causation

Answer 2

Factual causation is shown using the “ but for “ test, where the courts consider if the damage would have occurred “ but for “ the defendants breach ( Barnett v Chelsea)

Question 3

Apply “but for” test

Answer 3

“ but for” —, — asking/ doing this, — wouldn’t have had — happen to them

Question 4

Explain legal causation

Answer 4

Legal causation is shown using the remoteness of damage test, where the forte will establish whether the type of range was reasonably foreseeable , if not it will be considered to remote (wagonmound)

Question 5

Explain the intervening acts

Answer 5

Intervening acts, known as ‘novus actus interveniens’ are events that happen after someone’s careless actions and contribute to the harm caused,

Question 6

Apply intervening acts

Answer 6

It is reasonably foreseeable that — would — as —

Question 7

Foreseeable type of injury and thin skull rule

Answer 7

A foreseeable type of injury is one which a reasonable type of person could predict
The “thin skull” rule is a legal principle in negligence law. This is where is the victim has pre- existing vulnerability that makes them more susceptible to injury, the defendant is still fully liable of the injury

Question 8

Conclude the damage and full negligence answer

Answer 8

Therefore — would/n’t be found liable for — injuries under the tort of negligence