Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Causation and Remoteness - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Once the But For Test has been satisfied you must ask if the negligence was a material cause of the damage?
        
        Problems can arise where there is more than one possible cause of damage.
        
        Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw
        
        The claimant should prove ‘on the balance of probabilities’ the breach of duty caused or materially contributed to their injury.
- - - - The precise consequence of how the damage occurred does not need to be foreseen
  - - - The current test is that the Defendant is only liable for the damage that is reasonably foreseeable.
      - The current test (Wagon Mound) acts as a means of controlling cases brought to court.
    - - The defendant was liable for all damage as a consequence of his or her negligence and if the negligent act caused foreseeable harm
  - - - This rule means taking the victim as you find them and in respect of that Polemis applies.
        
        The defendant’s negligence could highlight the victim’s susceptibility to a certain injury or illness which at the time was not reasonably foreseeable.
        
        The defendant will be liable for all of the damages caused.
- - - - Haynes V Harwood
  - - - Baker V Willoughby
- - - - When the question is whether a certain event did or did not happen then the court must decide one way or the other.
        
        There is no question of chance or probability. Either it did or it did not happen. But the standard of civil proof is a balance of probabilities
        
        You can prove that a past event happened, but you cannot prove that a future event will happen
        
        Hotson V East Berkshire Health Authority