Damage Resulted from the Breach

HideShow resource information
Causation Factor 1 - Has there been damage?
Damage caused to the claimant by the defendant. The defendant may have been negligent but caused no suffering to the claimant. Can be either physical injury and/or damage to property.
1 of 12
Factor 1 - R v Croydon Health Authority
Hospital failed to warn R of the health dangers of pregnancy which worsened her heart condition. R claimed for damage in the form of her pregnancy but this was not damage as she wanted to have children.
2 of 12
Causation Factor 2 - Factual Causation in the "but for" test
"But for" the defendant's acts or omissions would the claimant have suffered the damage as and when he did? If the answer is no, factual causation is proven.
3 of 12
Factor 2 - Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital 1968
"But for" the hospital sending Barnett home, he WOULD have died as and when he did as he was poisoned beyond help. He was murdered.
4 of 12
Causation Factor 3 - Legal Causation (intervening act)
Has there been an intervening act, which breaks the chain of causation?
5 of 12
Factor 3 - Thompson v Blake James 1997
Thompson consulted several doctors before deciding not to immunise her child with the MMR jab. She could not hold Blake James solely responsible for her child's illness. Other doctors broke the chain of causation.
6 of 12
Remoteness Factor 1 - remoteness of damage (reasonably foreseeable test)
The damage suffered must not be so remote (unexpected) that a reasonable person would not have anticipated or foreseen the damage happening.
7 of 12
Factor 1 - The Wagon Mound
Discharged oil into Sydney harbour and the pollution damage from the oil spillage was foreseeable and not remote. The oil catching fire two days later because of the welding work on the claimant's wharf, too remote and not foreseeable.
8 of 12
Remoteness Factor 2 - must not be too remote (must be reasonably foreseeable)
The defendant is responsible if the general type of damage was foreseeable. The exact damage type doesn't need to be anticipated.
9 of 12
Factor 2 - Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963
Foreseeable damage was burns from paraffin lamp - didn't matter that they occurred due to an unexpected explosion when a lamp fell down a manhole. Burns were foreseeable and burns did occur.
10 of 12
Remoteness Factor 3 - Extent of the Damage ("you take your victim as you find him")
Providing the initial damage was foreseeable, the defendant is legally responsible for the full extent even if this goes beyond the damage expected.
11 of 12
Factor 3 - Smith v Leech Brain and Co. 1961
Smith worked with molten metal so some form of burns were expected and foreseeable. When his lip was burnt it resulted in cancer and his ultimate death and his employer was held responsible for the full extent including his death.
12 of 12

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Hospital failed to warn R of the health dangers of pregnancy which worsened her heart condition. R claimed for damage in the form of her pregnancy but this was not damage as she wanted to have children.

Back

Factor 1 - R v Croydon Health Authority

Card 3

Front

"But for" the defendant's acts or omissions would the claimant have suffered the damage as and when he did? If the answer is no, factual causation is proven.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

"But for" the hospital sending Barnett home, he WOULD have died as and when he did as he was poisoned beyond help. He was murdered.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Has there been an intervening act, which breaks the chain of causation?

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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