Damage
- Created by: Shannon Cunningham
- Created on: 14-04-14 13:53
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.
- Remoteness of damage- D is only liable for the damage that was reasonably foreseeable.
- Definition
Comments
No comments have yet been made