Damage (Negligence) Flashcards
1
Q
What is damage?
A
C has to prove they have suffered damage caused by D’s breach of duty
2
Q
What is factual causation?
A
Decided by the ‘but for’ test
3
Q
What was the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital? (FC)
A
- 1969
- D failed to diagnose C’s arsenic poisoning, sent him home where he died
- ‘But for’ the failure to diagnose, D would have died anyway
- No factual causation
4
Q
What was the case of Chester v Afshar? (FC)
A
- 2004
- Doctor failed to warn C about risks in back surgery
- ‘But for’ D’s failure to warn, C would not have had surgery and suffered injury
- Factual causation established
5
Q
What was the case of Knightley v Johns? (FC)
A
- 1982
- D’s negligent driving caused an accident
- Police officer sent against the flow of traffic, causing a second accident
- Broke the chain of causation, D did not cause the second accident
6
Q
What is remoteness? (FC)
A
- C can only claim for types of loss that are a reasonably foreseeable result of D’s breach
- Not reasonably foreseeable = not recoverable
7
Q
What was the case of The Wagon Mound (No.1)? (Remoteness)
A
- 1961
- D’s negligently spilled oil into harbour, sparks from welding ignited the oil causing fire damage
- Damage by fire was too remote
8
Q
What was the case of Hughes v Lord Advocate? (Remoteness)
A
- 1963
- D left unguarded an open manhole surrounded by paraffin lamps
- Young boy was burned in an explosion
- Claim was successful as burn injuries caused by an unattended lamp were foreseeable even if what actually happened was not
9
Q
Thin skull rule (Remoteness)
A
If the type of injury/damage is reasonably foreseeable but is much more serious as C has a pre-existing condition, D is liable for all subsequent consequences
10
Q
What was the case of Smith v Leech Brain? (Remoteness)
A
- 1962
- C had a rare cancer gene and was burnt by molten metal, eventually died
- Burn was reasonably foreseeable, D had to take C as he found him so he was liable for the death
