Damage

Question 0

1. Causation

Answer 0

Factual- Barnett v CKHM

But for doctors actions v would have still died

Question 1

After duty and breach d must have caused ?

Answer 1

Damage and is not too remote as a result of the breach

Question 2

2. Remoteness- prove whether damage was a result of the breach

Answer 2

Was damage reasonable foreseeable ?

Eg. Wagon mound (damage caused by oil was foreseeable, damage by fire was not)

Question 3

Consider type of damage- must be type that’s reasonably foreseeable

Answer 3

Eg. Hughes v lord advocate (burning- type was important but not how v was burnt)

Crossly v rawlinson- foreseeable burning, actual injury from falling down - not a foreseeable type

Question 4

Consider- extent of damage -

Answer 4

d will be responsible for the full extent of damage even if the damage is more serious than what could’ve been foreseen
Eg. Egg shell thin skull rule- smith v leech brain & co