Damage Flashcards
What must the claimant be able to prove in damage
That the damage was caused by the defendants breach of duty and that the damage was not too remote
What is causation in fact better known as
The but for test
What is the case for Causation in fact?
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital - the claimants husband drank a drink out of a cup with arsenic poison.
What is causation is law better know as
remoteness of damage, where the damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable in the defendants actions. Operating and substantial causes.
What is the case for causation in law?
Wagon Mound, the actual damage wad too remote even though it was foreseeable that the oil would damage the wharf.
What is the Thin Skull Rule?
the damage is not too remote but because of the defendants extra sensitivity towards harm, the defendant ill be fully liable of the extent of the injuries.
What is the case for the Thin Skull Rule? - forseeable
Smith v Leech Brain Co. - the claimant was burnt on the lip by molten steel which triggered is old cancer which he died from., the burn was foreseeable so he was liable.
What is the case for the Thin Skull Rule? - not forseeable (Kind of damage)
Hughes v Lord Advocate - The damage of the paraffin light going off and exploding was not foreseeable but the risk was of injury was as children attending a unblocked manhole would likely end up with injury. Also Bradford v robinsons rentals.
What is Novus Actus Interveniens
where the activity that has the affect on breaking the link between the defendants conduct and damage suffered there has been an intervening act, so the defendant will only be liable for the injury caused up until the intervening act,
What are the two cases that can be used for Novus Actus Inteveniens?
MPC v Reeves ( no break in causation as the prsioner was known to be at risk of committing suicide) Smith v Littlewoods ( vandals in secured building and set it on fire, it was a new act intervening as vandals was not common in the area’
