Damages

Factual causation

• C must show that it is more likely than not that if the D hadn’t been negligent. his injuries or damages wouldn’t have occurred (but for test)

• But for D’s negligence would the injury or damage have occurred?

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

• C was poisoned with arsenic & was refused medical treatment & died hours later as a result

• But for doctors refusing treatment C would’ve died anyway so not factual cause

Calvert v William Hill Credit Limit

• C was gambling addict & lost £2 million & tried to sue betting agency for his losses

• Even if C had been prevented from betting, he would’ve gambled in other ways & still lost his money so D not factual cause

Wilsher v Essex Health Authority

• Baby’s blindness caused by 6 other factors, not just hospital’s negligence so hospital not liable

• When there are several possible causes of injury, C must show D’s negligence is more likely to be the cause than all the others put together

Fitzgerald v Lane

• Both cars were equally negligent when they hit a pedestrian

• If damage was caused by several equally negligent Ds the blame doesn’t have to be pinned on one in particular

Legal causation

• D liable for all damage that is foreseeable & remote - if too remote then unforeseeable

The wagon mound (No1)

• Ship leaked oil into Sydney harbour

• Oil catching fire was not foreseeable but water pollution would have been

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing

• Asbestos block fell into molten metal & exploded

• Splashing the liquid on the floor would’ve been foreseeable but not the explosion

Hughes v Lord Advocate

• 2 boys knocked over paraffin lamp left by worksmen which caused an explosion

• D was liable for full extent of injuries as a burn was foreseeable

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

• C sent to work in extreme cold with no heating in van

• Some cold related injuries were foreseeable so D liable for full extent eg frostbite

Egg shell skull rule

• If some personal injury is foreseeable but C is unusually susceptible to injury then D still liable, even if unforeseeable

Smith v Leech Brain

• C incurred a burn to their lip which activated pre-cancerous cells

• C died from brain cancer years later - D was liable as fell under egg shell skull rule

Chain of causation

• D may be liable for further injuries to D following on from the injuries they caused directly if they’re foreseeable & no novus actus interveniens to break chain

Robinson v Post Office

• C slipped on ladder & taken to hospital where he received a routine injection he didn’t know he was allergic to

• Chain of causation not broken despite the injection

Rouse v Spires

• D negligently crashed lorry & a rescuer who came to help was hit by another lorry

• D was 25% responsible for injuries & lorry 75%

• D can be liable for any injuries suffered by a person trying to alleviate danger eg a rescuer

Contributory negligence

• D’s damages may be reduced if C is thought to have contributed to their own danger

Sayers v Harlow

C was injured when they stood on a toilet roller trying to escape a public toilet however they were deemed 25% to blame

Froom v Butcher

C lost 25% of damages for a car crash as they weren’t wearing a seatbelt

Fitzgerald v Lane

• C lost 50% of damages as accident had occurred while crossing a red light