Remoteness of damage

Question 1

Causation

Answer 1

The breach of duty has caused the injury or damage- factual causation

Question 2

Factual Causation

Answer 2

Decided using the ‘but for’ test: but for D’s act the injury or damage wouldn’t have occurred

Question 3

Barnett v Chelsea Hospital

Answer 3

Facts: 3 men went to A&E complaining of sickness after drinking tea. The duty doctor didn’t examine them and sent them home. One died of arsenic poisoning and his widow sued.

Held: Although a DOC existed the victim would’ve died anyway due to the poison so it couldn’t be said ‘but for’ the doctors action he would’ve died.

Question 4

Intervening events

Answer 4

Can break the chain of causation

Question 5

Wagon Mound 1

Answer 5

Facts: D’s negligently discharged fuel into a harbour. The oil spread to a wharf where welding was taking place and this caused the oil to catch fire- several ships damaged

Held: The Privy Council held that the test for remoteness is whether the kind of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable by D at the time of the breach. Here they were not liable- couldn’t have known welding would take place

Question 6

‘egg shell skull rule’

Answer 6

Take your victim as you find them- D will be liable where injuries to C are more serious than anticipated

Question 7

Smith v Leech Brain

Answer 7

Facts: C suffered a lip burn as a result of D’s negligence. The burn caused cancer and he died 3yrs later

The burn was a foreseeable consequence of D’s negligence- resulted in the death. D was liable for his death. It was not necessary to show that death by cancer was foreseeable, nor that an ordinary person would not have died from the injury. The egg shell skull rule applies and D must take his victim as he finds him

Question 8

Psychiatric injury

Answer 8

Primary victim- suffers physical/mental injury

Secondary victim- suffers from what they’ve seen- must show using medical evidence its beyond normal grief/distress

Question 9

Alcock Criteria

Answer 9

Hillsborough crush- 10 claiming nervous shock, classed as secondary victims
C must show suff-prox relationship to victim ‘close tie of love and affection’
Alcock lost his bro-in-law & court held no close ties so claim didn’t succeed

Question 10

Criteria for secondary victims to claim

Answer 10

1. Close ties
2. Must witness the event/aftermath
3. Proximity to event/aftermath- 8hrs too distant