Tort (LLB) - Damage

HideShow resource information
There are two types of causation that need to be proved in negligence cases. What are they?
Factual (But for test) & Legal causation which looks at the remoteness of damage & whether that damage was forseeable as a result of the defendant's act/omission.
1 of 18
What is the test for factual causation? Give a case example.
'But for' the d's act/omission, would the outcome to the c have remained the same? If yes = no factual causation, If no = factual causation Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital Management Committee.
2 of 18
What about if there are multiple causes of damage? Give case example.
If there are multiple causes of injury and it cannot be proved who caused the injury, such as is cases where the c gets mesothelioma, you can sue each in proportion to the time you spent with the company. Barker v Corus.
3 of 18
What statute was this rule further refined in?
The Compensation Act 2006
4 of 18
You must look to see if there is any novus actus interveniens. What can break the change of causation?
1. Third party 2. Act of the claimant 3. Act of nature
5 of 18
What did the case of Reeves v MPC show?
It showed that there was no novus actus interveniens because the MP knew that Reeves was a suicide risk and therefore there was no new act.
6 of 18
What did the case of Orange v CC West Yorkshire show?
In this case the c was not known to be a suicide risk before he hung himself. His estate tried to sue the police, however, it was held that the c's act was a novus actus interveniens as his injury was not forseeable.
7 of 18
Note ->
In cases involving police, unless the risk of the individual was known to them, it would not be desirable to show forseeability of damage for public policy reasons.
8 of 18
In what case did vandals get in to a locked property and set fire to the property damaging other properties around it? What did the courts conclude?
Smith v Littlewoods. The claimants (owners of the vandalised property) were not liable for the damage caused to neighbouring properties because it was not forseeable. Therefore there was third party novus actus.
9 of 18
In what case did the c get injured whilst at work and 6 years later commit suicide? His wife sued the company for his death. What was the outcome?
Corr v IBC Vehicles. It was held that the original injury was the cause of death as the injury caused by the company caused his unstable mental state, causing him to commit suicide. = No novus actus.Despite this,this judgement has had much criticism.
10 of 18
Secondly, for legal causation, you must look at remoteness of damage. There are two strains of thought on how to decide if the damage was two remote. What two cases evidence this?
Re Polemis and The Wagon Mound N01.
11 of 18
What was the ruling principle in Re Polemis for remoteness of damage?
That if damage is forseeable then the d will be liable for any kind of damage that occurs. This is a direct causation test.
12 of 18
What was the ruling principle in the Wagon Mound N01?
The d is only liable if the damage is a forseeable consequence of the breach of duty. In this case the damage was too remote because the kind of damage was not forseeable.
13 of 18
The privy council said in the Wagon Mound, if some, even minor damage is forseeable, the d is liable, irrespective of the extent. Is this true?
Yes. As long as the type of damage that occurs is forseeable, then the extent of that damage is irrelevant &/or even if the form it takes is unusual.
14 of 18
The kind of damage only must be forseeable. What case evidences this?
Bradford v Robinson Rentals. In this case some cold injury to the c was forseeable. Because of this, the c successfully sued the d for the frostbite that he suffered even though the extent of the injury was not forseeable in the circumstances.
15 of 18
The courts intially took a narrow approach as to what kind of damage was held to be forseeable. What case evidences this?
Tremain v Pike. The court held that forseeable harm to the c would have been a rat bite, not the disease that the c got from the rat's urine.
16 of 18
The courts are more likely to take the broader approach set in the Wagon Mound rather than Re Polemis. What 2000 case reaffirmed the use of the rule in the Wagon Mound case?
Jolley v Sutton. The court found that it was not necessary to distinguish between the different types of physical injuries, because the precise nature of the injury does not need to be foreseeable.
17 of 18
The type of damage need only be forseeable, the extent is irrelevant, even to the point where the c is more susceptible to harm. What rule is this and what case backs this up?
The 'thin skull rule'. You must take your victim as you find them. Smith v Leech Brian
18 of 18

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What is the test for factual causation? Give a case example.

Back

'But for' the d's act/omission, would the outcome to the c have remained the same? If yes = no factual causation, If no = factual causation Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital Management Committee.

Card 3

Front

What about if there are multiple causes of damage? Give case example.

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What statute was this rule further refined in?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

You must look to see if there is any novus actus interveniens. What can break the change of causation?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort resources »