Resulting damage

• The defendant's Breach must have caused the claimant's damage. The damage must be caused both in fact and in law- AKA factual and legal causation.
• What test is used for factual causation?

  The but / for test - The test is if the harm to the C would nothave occurred “but for” the D’s negligence then that negligence is a cause of the harm.
• What case gives an example of the But/for test in negligence?

  Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
• What is the significance of the case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

  It shows how the but / for test is used in negligence
• What 3 things can break the chain of causation?

  Act of the claimant

  Act of Nature

  A third Party
• What is the latin for intervening acts?

  Novus actus interveniens
• What case gives an example of the action of a claimant being a Novus actus interveniens?

  Mckew v Hollands
• What is the significance of the case of KcKew v Hollands?

  It shows how actions of the claimant can be Novus actus interveniens
• What case shows how an act of nature can be a Novus actus interveniens

  Carsolgie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government
• what is the significance of the case of Carslogie Steamship Co V royal Norwegian government?

  It shows how an act of nature can be a Novus actus interveniens
• What case shows how an act of a third party can be a Novus actus interveniens

  Knightly v Johns
• WHat is the significance of the case of Knightly v Johns?

  It shows how the action of a third party can be a Novus actus interveniens
• What is the test for legal causation called?

  The remoteness of damage test
• What is asked in the remoteness of damage test?

  Is the type of damage reasonably foreseeable
• What is the significance of the case of the Wagon Mound?

  It shows an example of where the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, and as such the remoteness of damage test failing.
• In terms of the remoteness of damage test, when will the defendant be liable?

  The D will be liable for things that can be traced back to their original act. Additionally, they will not be liable for things that are too far-fetched.
• WHat is the significance of the case of Tremain v Pike?

  It is an example of damage not being reasonably foreseeable.
• What case in the context of the remoteness of damage test shows damage not being reasonably foreseeable ?

  Tremain v Pike
• In the context of the remoteness of damage test, what case shows damage being reasonably foreseeable ?

  Bradford v Robinson rentals
• What is the thin skull principle?

  The thin skull principle is if the C is injured through D’s breach and the initial injury is reasonably foreseeable then the D is liable for the full extent of the harm caused. However, a person’s liability is not lessened because the C had a pre-existing condition.
• What case illustrates the use of the thin skull principle?

  Smith v Leech brain and co