HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • Damage
    • Definition
      • It must be shown that D's breach of caused the damage and that the damage was not too remote.
      • The C must prove factual causation and legal causation.
    • Factual Causation
      • Would the damage of occurred 'but for' the breach of duty? - The courts use the 'but for' test.
      • In Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington, a patient died after receiving medical negligence. However, he died from arsenic poisoning not medical negligence. The hospital therefore did not cause his death.
    • Legal Caustion
      • Remoteness of damage- D is only liable for the damage that was reasonably foreseeable.
        • In 'the wagon mound' - the damage suffered must not be so remote that a reasonable person would not have anticipated the damage happening.
      • Foresight of the type of damage - D is responsible if the general type of damage was foreseeable.
        • In Hughes V Lord Advocate - the burns suffered by the boy were the sort of injury that is expected from leaving a paraffin lamp lying around.
      • The extent of the damage - Providing the initial damage was foreseeable, the D is responsible for all the damage even if this goes well beyond expected.
        • In Smith V Leech Brain & Co - the C was  burnt on the lip by molten metal. This triggered a dormant cancer condition, which lead to death. The D's were held responsible not only for the burn but also for his death as the burn on the lip triggered cancer.


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »