NEGLIGENCE - DAMAGES

Question 1

factual causation

Answer 1

‘but for’ D’s breach of duty C would/would not have suffered harm.

Question 2

factual causation - case law

Answer 2

Barnett v Chelsea

-‘but for’ the defendants breach of duty (negligence) the claimant’s husband would have died anyway.

Question 3

Remoteness of damage

Answer 3

was the damage too remote from the original breach of duty?

Question 4

the remoteness of damage - case study

Answer 4

The Wagon Mound

- the damage was not too remote as it was reasonably foreseeable that the oil would have set alight and cause damage.

Question 5

was the type of damage foreseeable even if the manner in which it happened was not?

Answer 5

yes, the precise manner in which the accident occurred was not foreseeable, however, it was sufficient that this type of injury was foreseeable.

Question 6

the “thin skull rule”

Answer 6

if there is a break in the chain of causation, caused by D’s actions the defendant is liable for the full extent of the loss.