Negligence - Damage

Basic Information

Claimant must show a link between D's breach of duty and C's loss or damage

factual causation

is the damage too remote?

if the loss/damage would not have happened but for D's breach

if D had not breached, C would not have suffered

🚩 Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC

there are times when C would have suffered damage anyway, regardless of D

damage must be reasonably foreseeable consequence of breach

intervening acts can break the chain of causation (novus actus interveniens)

🚩 Knightley v Johns

Remoteness of Damage

there can be factual causation but C may not win the case because the damage suffered by C is too remote

D will not be liable for everything that can be traced back to D's original conduct

too remote = too far removed from what the defendant has done

🚩 the Wagon Mound

a test was established

D is liable for damage only if that type of damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of D's breach

objective test

the general type/kind of the damage must be reasonably foreseeable

if the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, D is liable for the full extent of the damage

🚩 Bradford v Robinson Rentals: it does not matter if the precise form of damage is unusual

🚩 Hughes v Lord Advocate: it does not matter the precise circumstances of the damage to be foreseen

🚩 Doughty v Turner Asbestos: D not liable as cause of damage was not foreseeable, therefore injury not foreseeable

Eggshell Skull Rule

providing the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, D's liability to C is not reduced because C had a pre-existing condition that made the injuries worse

D will be liable for all the consequences of their conduct

🚩 Smith v Leech Brain Co.