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.