Negligence eval

• factual causation -but for


  But for the defendants acts/omission the injury or damage would not have occurred.
• Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital


  • 3 night-watchmen went to A & E complaining of sickness after drinking tea.
  • The nurse rang the doctor for advice who said they should see their own doctor.
  • One of the men died of arsenic poisoning and his widow sued doctor.
  • The Court stated that the doctor owed a duty to the man and had breached it, but the claim failed as by the time he went to hospital it was too late to save him.
• Legal Causation


  claimant to show the damage/injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty and not too remote a consequence.
• Novus actus interveniens


  An intervening act can break the chain.

  Smith v Littlewoods

  Vandals damaged a disused building owned by Littlewoods.  This contributed to a fire which damaged nearby properties.

  Littlewoods were not liable as the vandalism was a novus actus which broke the chain.
• Eggshell Skull rule


  –Smith v Leech

  A widow claimed for the death of her husband. As a result of his employers negligence his lip was burnt. This triggered cancer and he died three years later.

  The employer was liable for his death as their negligence caused the burn and egg shell rule meant they had to take their victim as they found them.
• Remoteness of damage


  The harm/damage must not be too remote from the act or omission i.e. it must be reasonably foreseeable.
• The Wagon Mound


  • Oil was negligently spilt from def’s ship into Sydney harbour. The water flowed from here to the claimants' wharf where repairs were being made to a ship.
  • Sparks from welders caused the oil to catch fire and burnt the wharf.
  • The oil damage was reasonably foreseeable, but the fire damage was too remote, which means, not reasonably foreseeable and the claim  failed.
• Type of injury to be foreseeable


  Only need to write about this if the injury is out of the ordinary that would be expected as a result of the negligence
• Hughes v Lord Advocate


  A worker left a manhole unattended and covered with a tent and left paraffin lamps outside.

  An 8 year old boy climbed into the hole, knocked one of the lamps over causing an explosion in which he was burnt.

  The claim succeeded as it was foreseeable that a child might explore the  site, break lamp and be burnt.