damage template - negligence

Question 1

for a successful negligence claim….

Answer 1

there must be damage which means loss resulting from a breach of duty of care.
here the damage is…….

Question 2

breach must cause the damage…..

Answer 2

so first courts consider factual causation decided by the but for test.
but for d’s act or omission the injury or damage would not have occurred
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
Here but for d’s……….

Question 3

courts will consider wether damage caused was reasonably foreseeable…

Answer 3

and not too remote.
illustrated by Wagon Mound where an oil spillage which drifted into a harbour and was ignited by a welder’s spark and burnt down wharf was considered too remote and not reasonably foreseeable
it is/ isn’t reasonably foreseeable that……………

Question 4

type of injury has to be reasonably foreseeable…..

Answer 4

not the precise manner in which it occurred.
Bradford v Robinson Rentals cold related injury was reasonably foreseeable so it did not matter that frost bite was an unusual injury.
However Doughty v Turner the explosion that happened after a lid was dropped into a vat of molten metal was a completely unexpected reaction and held to be too remote
Here……….

Question 5

You must take

Answer 5

your victim as you find them. If the type of injury or damage is reasonably foreseeable but it is much more serious because the claimant had a pre existing condition then d is liable for all the subsequent consequences
Smith v Leech Brain and Co
Here…………

Question 6

in conclusion

Answer 6

d’s beach did/ did not cause the damage