AS Law02 - Tort - Damage/Resulting loss

Damage is the resulting loss when an event of negligence occurs.

There are two parts of damge:

• causation; this is the idea that a D must have caused the loss

• Remoteness; this is concerned with whether the loss or damage is reasonable.

•  
  • Both parts of causation must be proved!

Like criminal law this uses the "but for test"

• But for the defendants acts or omissions the claiment would not have suffered the loss or harm.
  • Barenett v Chelsea and Kensington (aresenic poisoning from the tea, called doctor but doctor gave no medical advice, resulted in death) - No causation in fact; workers would have died anyway.

• Intervening acts; breaks the chain of causation
  • Smith v Littlewoods 1987 (vandals broke in and set fire to a cinema) - new intervening act as vandals were not common in this area.
  • Corr V IBC 2006 (severe head injuries led to depression and suicide) - negligent for head injuries but depression and suicide were new intervening acts as they were not likely results.

• Multiple Acts; may be more than one possible cause of loss; must be based on balance of probablities. Most possible cause must be taken.
  • Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Service (asbestos poisoning) - couldnt prove causation due to multiple employers.

• Defendant is liable for damage only if it is foreseeable consequence of breach of duty.

• Wagon Mound 1961 (oil spill that set off a fire and burnt down a wharf across the water) 
  • Damage by oil was foreseeable but fire damage was too remote to claim that there was a breach of duty.

• Bradford v Robinson Rentals 1967 (rented van had no heating, driver was driving in the cold and resulted in frostbite on his toes)
  • although this case was unusual such a result is foreseeable.

• Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 (young boys went down manhole with a parrafin lamp which leaked and caused an explosion)
  • was the extreme harm linked to the foreseeability of the event?

• Thin skull rule; take victim as you find them
  • pre-existing conditions that made injuries worse will not lessen any liability of negligence

•  
  •  
    • Smith V Leech Brain co. ( minor molten metal burn whilst working)

•  
  •  
    •  
      • This triggered a pre-existing cancerous condition which resulted in death and thus negligence.