Damage is the outcome of a breach of duty of care. It must be proven that the damage has resulted from the breach using the causation format:
1 of 5
Factual causation is decided using the 'But For' Test
Barnett v Chelsea: but for the doctor not seeing him he would've died from arsenic poisoning anyway. The doctor was not liable; couldn't be proven damage resulted from breach.
2 of 5
Legal causation is the remoteness of the damage and foreseeability
"Only liable for damage not too remote". In the case Wagon Mound, the boat owners were not liable for the full extent of the damage as it wasn't foreseeable.
3 of 5
Is the type of damage foreseeable?
In Smith v Hughes two boys dropped an unattended paraffin lamp into a manhole. The burns suffered for foreseeable even if the way they got them wasn't.
4 of 5
cont.
Smith v Leechbrain: a welder undertook work and a shard of metal burnt his lip activating a dormant cancer which eventually killed him. His employer didn't provide a visor. The burn was foreseeable which led to his eventual death.
5 of 5
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Barnett v Chelsea: but for the doctor not seeing him he would've died from arsenic poisoning anyway. The doctor was not liable; couldn't be proven damage resulted from breach.
Back
Factual causation is decided using the 'But For' Test
Card 3
Front
"Only liable for damage not too remote". In the case Wagon Mound, the boat owners were not liable for the full extent of the damage as it wasn't foreseeable.
Back
Card 4
Front
In Smith v Hughes two boys dropped an unattended paraffin lamp into a manhole. The burns suffered for foreseeable even if the way they got them wasn't.
Back
Card 5
Front
Smith v Leechbrain: a welder undertook work and a shard of metal burnt his lip activating a dormant cancer which eventually killed him. His employer didn't provide a visor. The burn was foreseeable which led to his eventual death.
Comments
No comments have yet been made