Legal Causation

• What are the two elements to legal causation?

  Was the harm too remote? and Was there a break in the chain of causation?
• What does the law consider when determining if damage will be compensated?

  The law draws a line between situations where damage will be compensated and where it will not.
• What is meant by remoteness of loss in legal causation?

  It refers to whether the type of damage suffered by the claimant was reasonably foreseeable at the time the breach occurred.
• In the case of The Wagon Mound no.1 (1961), what was the key change in the law regarding damage?

  The law now states that only damage that is a kind of which is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach is recoverable.
• What was held regarding the slipway and other ships in The Wagon Mound no.1 case?

  The slipway was recoverable, but the damage to the other ships was not foreseeable.
• In Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963), what type of damage was deemed reasonably foreseeable?

  Burns were reasonably foreseeable, regardless of the exact means by which they occurred.
• What was the significance of the distinction made in Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)?

  The distinction drawn between types of damage was considered too fine to accept.
• In Tremain v Pikes (1969), why was the employer not found in breach of duty?

  The Weil's disease was considered a remote possibility that could not reasonably be forced upon the employer.
• What legal principle is established in Smith v Leech Brain (1962)?

  The thin skull (egg shell skull) rule applies, meaning the defendant must take the victim as they find them.
• What is the key question in Smith v Leech Brain (1962) regarding injury?

  Whether the type of injury suffered, namely the burn, was reasonably foreseeable.
• In Robinson v Post Office (1974), what was the outcome regarding liability?

  The defendant was liable for both the original injury and the encephalitis as it was foreseeable.
• What does breaking the chain of causation often involve?

  It often involves later negligent acts.
• In Lamb v Camden Borough Council, what was the ruling regarding the squatters' actions?

  The squatters' actions were not foreseeable and amounted to novus actus interveniens.
• In Knightly v Johns (1982), what was determined about the negligence?

  The negligence was sufficient to break the chain of causation between the defendant's original action and the claimant's injury.
• In Rouse v Squires (1973), why did the second accident not break the chain of causation?

  The second accident was a natural consequence of the first accident.
• In McKew v Holland (1969), why was the defendant not liable for the claimant's broken ankle?

  The claimant broke the chain of causation by negatively throwing himself down the stairs.
• In Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets (1969), why was the chain of causation not broken?

  It was not unreasonable for her to walk down the stairs, so the chain of causation was not broken.
• In Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government (1952), why could the claimant not recover compensation for loss of use?

  The repair time for the weather damage was regarded as a supervening event occurring during a normal voyage.