Damage – Causation and Remoteness

General Principles Breach of duty must cause the loss complained of Loss must not be too remote from the act

Factual Causation “But for” test – test is satisfied if it can be said that but for D’s act or omission, C would not have suffered the loss or harm Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee –3 night-watchmen arrived at casualty complaining to a nurse that they had been vomiting for 3 hours after drinking tea. She reported their complaints by telephone to the duty medical casualty officer who instructed her to tell the men to go home to bed and call their own doctors if they still felt ill in the morning. The casualty officer did not speak to the men or offer to examine them which would have been normal practice. Men left and about 5 hours later, one of them died from arsenic poisoning. Medical opinion was that C was likely to have died from the poisoning even if he had been admitted to hospital and treated – no factual causation and no liability in negligence (even though D did owe duty of care and breached it)

Remoteness of Damage Even if there is factual causation, C’s claim will still fail if the damage suffered is too remote 3 things considered for remoteness of damage: Was the damage reasonably foreseeable? Was the kind or method of damage reasonably foreseeable? D must take C as he finds him (“thin skull” rule)

Remoteness of Damage 1 – Reasonable Foreseeability E.g. – you bump into the back of my car. My car suffers very minor damage, I am late for the interview I was travelling to, I don’t get the job because I was late, I am unemployed for many months, I sell my car to cover my living expenses, I buy an old cheap car without safety features, I crash that car and I am injured, I become depressed and commit suicide – should you be liable for all the consequences of you bumping into my car? The law has to draw a line and say that some events are too remote to be considered to have been caused by the negligent act D is only liable for damage if it is the foreseeable consequence of his breach The Wagon Mound – D spilt oil whilst refuelling a ship. Oil spread over the water to C’s wharf, some distance away. C was carrying out repair work to a ship which involved welding. Molten metal from C’s wharf fell on floating cotton waste which smouldered and ignited the oil on the water. C’s wharf was severely damaged. Ds did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the oil could be set alight when spread on water. They had made enquiries about the possibility of fire as soon as the oil was noticed. Court held that the damage by the oil was foreseeable but the damage by the fire was too remote and was not foreseeable.

Remoteness of Damage 2 – The kind and method of damage As long as the type of damage is foreseeable it doesn’t matter that the form it takes is unusual Bradford v Robinson Rentals – C required by his employer to take an old van from Exeter to Bedford and collect a new one. The weather was very cold and there was advice not to travel unless it was necessary. Vans had no heater and the windscreen kept freezing over so C had to drive with the window open. C suffered frostbite. It was foreseeable he would suffer some cold-related injury so D was liable for the frostbite even though the injury was unusual – because frostbite is an extreme form of injury from being cold

Remoteness of Damage 3 – Take your Victim as you Find Him Similar to Thin Skull rule A person’s liability in negligence is not extinguished or lessened because C had a pre-existing condition that made the injury worse Smith V Leech Brain – C suffered a very minor splash by molten metal that caused a burn on his face. The burn triggered his pre-existing cancerous condition and C developed cancer. Some minor injury at least was foreseeable – extreme reaction was a result of his condition and the principle is that you take a person as you find them – claim succeeded