HideShow resource information


  • "but for" test - but for the defendants act, the claimant would not have suffered damage.
    BARNETT V CHELSEA HOSPITAL - 3 workmen had drank tea which had arsenic in it. They all went to A&E but the doctor had sent them away thinking they had been drinking. 5 hours later one of them died but the doctor wasn't liable as he would have died anyway if he would have been admitted to hospital and treated with care.
    • intervening acts
      SMITH V LITTLEWOODS - vandals setting fire to unoccupied secured house. Vandals not common in the area therefore the property owners aren't liable for the damages.

The damaged caused must be reasonably foreseeable.

THE WAGON MOUND in this case a boat was pulling into Sydney harbour causing an oil spill. A welder was working near by and they did tests on the oil to see if it was flammable in water, it wasn't so the welder could carry on working. A man close by was sheering his sheep, the wool had landed on top of the oil, the welders sparks then…


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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