element three - causation of damage

• what are the two types of causation?

  factual and legal causation
• causation of damage

  there are two parts to this final element - damage must be caused and damage must not be too remote
• what is factual causation?

  the but for test - but for the defendants actions the end result would not have happened
• barnett 1969 - factual causation

  three men went to the emergency room feeling sick from tea made by a fourth man. the men did not get examined and were told to go home. One man died from arsenic poisoning. his wife sued the hospital for negligence and breach of duty of care. it was decided that there was no factual causation as the amount of poison in his system would have killed him even if the hospital intervened
• what is legal causation?

  there must be no intervening acts that break the chain of causation. the court must consider if the damage was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions
• mckew - legal causation

  The claimant tried to climb down a steep concrete staircase with no handrail. he injured his leg causing temporary disability. he jumped down the stairs which therefore broke the chain of causation
• what is the remoteness of damage?


  the damage must not be too remote - in other words, it must be reasonably foreseeable. this principle comes from the case of wagon mound
• wagon mound 1961 - the remoteness of damage

  fuel oil had leaked onto a boat and a wharf. two days later the wharf caught fire. the oil damage was reasonably foreseeable but the fire damage was too remote and not reasonably foreseeable so the claimant couldn't claim compensation
• Hughes 1963 - type of injury must be reasonably foreseeable

  post office workmen left a manhole unattended covered only with a tarp. the claimant was an 8 year old who knocked the lamp over causing an explosion which caused him to get badly burnt. the court decided that it was reasonably foreseeable that an 8 year old would climb in and the injury was reasonably foreseeable so the workmen were liable
• take your victim as you find them

  the defendant is still liable for the claimants injuries even if they have a preexisting condition. this is known as the thin skull rule
• smith 1962 - Thin Skull rule

  because of the defendant's negligence, a man was burnt on his lip by metal in the factory. the man had a condition that meant the burn brought on cancer that killed him. The burn was reasonably foreseeable and the defendant was liable for the damage because of the thin skull rule