Damages

What needs to be proven for satisfy damages

1. Factual causation

2. Legal causation

   =remoteness of damage

   =thin skull rule

   =intervening acts

Explain factual causation for damages

1. But for test

   =would c have suffered harm but for D’s acts/omissions

2. (Barnett v Chelsea kenington hospital)

Explain legal causation for damages

-even if D factually causes harm law can still limit liability:

1. Remoteness of liability (The wagon mound)

   =prove: type of loss was reasonably foreseeable BUT extent/manner in which it occurs does not need to be foreseeable

2. Thin skull rule (Smith v Leech brain)

   =FORESEEABLE that action cause injury to C✅

   =causes UNFORESEEABLE reaction due to C’s *preexisting vulnerabilities*

   =D takes full liabilities for loss

3. Interviewing acts

   A: C’s unreasonable acts

   B: Third party acts (ex:police)

   C: Natural events: only reasonable ones

Case for factual causation

Barnett v Chelsea kenigston hospital

Case for remoteness of damage (Legal causation)

The wagon mound

Case for ‘But for’ test

Barnett v Kensington hospital