Tort Law Damage - Causation and remoteness of damage - Flashcards in A Level and IB Law

What is damage?

in negligence claims the claimant must prove that the defendants breach of duty has caused damage
Damage includes:
- Causation
- Remoteness

1 of 32

What is causation?

must be established in all torts where proof of damage is required
Burden of proof is on claimant to establish that it was act or omission of defendants which caused their loss
Generally a straight forward factual enquiry decided by application of "but f

2 of 32

Causation - 'but for' test

What happened in the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington AHA 1969 which established the but for test ?

Mr B went to hospital complaining of a severe stomach pains and vomiting, seen by a nurse who telephones the doctor on duty, doctor told her to send him home and contact his GP in morning, he died 5 hours later from arsenic poisoning, had doctor examined

3 of 32

More than one cause: Succession

What happened in the case of Performance Cars v Abraham 1962?

simple application of but for test, d crashed into claimants car as a result the car required a respray, while he was waiting for car to be resprayed he was still driving and 2nd d crashed so who pays - but for test applies so first car pays for the respr

4 of 32

More than one cause: Succession

What happened in the case of Baker v Willoughby 1970?

policy decisions - leg injured by d as a result of which he could no longer work so lower paid job, while working as a security guard a man shot him in his leg and had to have it amputated, sues the first for injury to his leg but d says what leg you dont

5 of 32

More than one cause: Succession

What happened in the case of Jabling v Associated Diaires 1982?

went against Baker v Willoughby which still stands but there is case that goes opposite way this was a butcher who injured his back at work as a result of employer, then had onset of independant disease of the back, unassociated with injury, court said em

6 of 32

More than one cause: Concurrent

The dust cases - innocent and guilty dust
Causation was established provided guilty dust made a material contribution to lung disease
What happened to the case of Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw 1956?

claimant worked in factory that was dusty, d was in breach of duty as failed to provide extractor fans so claimant working in dust, he got lung disease, even if fan still be dust, two causes innocent dust (there even if fan) or guilty dust (should have be

7 of 32

More than one cause: Concurrent

Causation established provided the guilty dust made the risk of injury more probable

What happened in the case of McGhee v NCB 1973?

worked at brick factory, covered in dust all day, employee in breach of duty for failing to provide any shower facilities so innocent dust he would be exposed to, guilty dust should have been showered off, he got dermetitus, result was no dust caused it,

8 of 32

Multiple causes - Evidential difficulties

What happened in the case of Fitzgerald v Lane 1987?

reversed burden of proof - claimant stepped out onto pelican crossing got hit by 2 cars and was paralysed, no one could establish which car caused the paralysis so reversed the burden of proof rather than the claimant having to proof which car defendants

9 of 32

Multiple causes - evidential difficulties

In the case of Willsher v Essex 1988 what did they say?

overruled F v L & Mcghee, although he could have caused the issues the oxygen was 1 of 5 complications, so hasnt established the causation on balance of probability the doctor has to prove they didnt cause it but the court over ruled everything saying tha

10 of 32

Multiple causes - evidential difficulties

What happened in the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven 2002?

revived McGhee - claimant suffered from a form of lung disease caused by exposure to aspestos, they had been exposed by 5 different employers over his whole life time, no one could prove what employer caused this because it could sit dormant for over 40 y

11 of 32

What is novus actus interveniens - new intervening act?

A novus actus interveniens may break the chain of causation, different tests apply depending on where the new act is that of claimant or a third party:
1 - The Claimant, test applied is whether claimant acted reasonably
2 - A third party, was action fors

12 of 32

Novus Actus Interveniens - Act of the Claimant

What happened in the case of McKew v Holland 1969?

claimant injured by d, had a broken leg in car accident due to negligence, whilst recovering he attempted to climb down steep steps unaided, he got half way and then jumped 10feet down as his leg gave way, court said he hadnt acted reasonably so when he b

13 of 32

Novus Actus Interveniens - Act of the Claimant

What happened in the case of Sayers v Harlow BC 1958?

claimant got trapped in a public toilet late at night, she had been calling for help but no one had come, lock had gotten stuck so she attempted to climb out and stood on revolving toilet roll holder, ended up falling down the toilet, court said it was re

14 of 32

Novus Actus Intervenies - act of the third party, was the act foreseeable

What happened in the case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht 1970?

boys who were doing supervised labour, officers went to bed and they escaped and ruined a yacht so the act here was foreseeable

15 of 32

Novus Actus Interveniens - act of the third party, was the act foreseeable

What happened in the case of Lamb v Camden 1981?

home owner where the council was digging up the road outside there house fracturing a water pipe causing their house to flood and causing them to move out whilst they had to do repairs, whilst the claimants were out of the house it was empty so squatters

16 of 32

Novus actus interveniens - negligent acts are more likely to break the chain of causation

What happened in the case of Knightley v Johns & Ors 1982?

Mr J car overturned in a tunnel, 2 police officers on motorcycles were instructed by senior officer to close entrance, whilst going down tunnel drove on wrong side and involved in a head on crash and sustained serious injuries, senior officers failure to

17 of 32

Loss of chance - not allowed in cases of medical negligence

What happened in the case of Holsan v East Berkshire Area Health Authority 1987?

claimant was a boy who climbed a tree and fell out, went to hospital and they failed to diagnose that he had an eclosive upper hip and if spotted could have fixed it he had a 40% chance of full recovery, but they didnt and he was left with a disability wa

18 of 32

Loss of chance - not allowed in cases of medical negligence

What happened in the case of Gregg v Scott 2005?

claimant went to GP said he had a lump but doctor said it was nothing to worry about, it was actually cancer and he wanted to claim for his loss of chance to have treatment early but court said no in medical cases you cant sue for lose of a chance

19 of 32

Loss of chance - courts more willing to accept loss of chance as an actionable head of damage

What happened in the case of Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons 1995?

claimant successfully sued the solicitors for failing to advice them about a particular clause so it lose them a chance to negotiate out of the clause

20 of 32

Remoteness of danger

What is direct consequence?
What case is used?

Originally no requirement that damage was too remote, d would be liable for all loss which was a direct consequence of d actions.

RePolemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd 1921

21 of 32

Direct Consequence

What happens in the case of RePolemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd 1921?

d dropped a blank of wood he was a worker in a ship and he dropped it on hold of ship and it hit something as it went down, gases caused an unforeseeable explosion and caused destruction of the ship so he was liable for dropping the plank of wood and caus

22 of 32

Remoteness of damage - the current test

What happened in the case of The Wagon Mound 1961?

ship that leaked the oil and drifted past cotton fields got cotton mixed in and sparks from the melting works ignited the oil

23 of 32

Remoteness of damage - the current test

What is The Wagon Mound test?

Was the damage of a kind that was foreseeable?
The damage was too remote because you wouldn't expect to see that type of damage so they were not liable

24 of 32

Kind of damage

What was said in the case of Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company 1964?

Scold was foreseeable burn was not

25 of 32

Kind of damage

What was said in the case of Page v Smith 1996?

Provided some type of personal injury was foreseeable it did not matter whether physical or psychiatric

26 of 32

Manner of occurrence

What happened in the case of Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963?

need not occur in foreseeable manner - workman had left man hole and put tent round it with some paraffin lamps so cars knew it was there, young boys took lamps and went into hole to explore, there were natural gases and an unforeseeable explosion and the

27 of 32

Manner of occurrence

What happened in the case of Tremaine v Pike 1969?

manner of occurrence must be foreseeable, courts took opposite approach, farm worker contracted disease carried by rats, he got it from handling materials that rats were weeing on, court said it was foreseeable that he might contract disease from a rat it

28 of 32

Manner of Occurrence

What happened in the case of Jolley v Sutton 2000?

manner of occurrence must be foreseeable, occupiers liability case, abandoned boat that left on council land some boys did boat up, take it out they started to try and fix it and one of the boys were paralysed, said it was foreseeable that younger boys mi

29 of 32

What is the egg shell skull rule?

take your victim as you find them

30 of 32

Egg shell skull rule

What happened in the case of Page v Smith 1996?

where school teacher was in a minor accident on the road didn't suffer physical injury but suffered from a psychiatric injury and she was in remission but accident triggered it so she was unable to work because it was pre-existing condition the defendant

31 of 32

Egg Shell Skull Rule

What happened in the case of Smith v Leech Brain 1962?

claimant suffered a burn on his lip at work, burn happened to occur on some pre-cancerous cells to that claimant would have got cancer at some point in his life but the burn triggered it sooner and he died so the employer was liable for his death of cance

32 of 32

Get Revising

Tort Law Damage - Causation and remoteness of damage

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: