Liability in Negligence (OCR A-Level Law): Flashcards
📚Flashcards
Practise the cards
10 cards from this deck
ShowHide
Practise the cards
10 cards from this deck
2 requirements for recoverable damage in negligence
2 requirements for recoverable damage in negligence
Causation and remoteness
Test used to establish factual causation
Test used to establish factual causation
The 'but for' test
What the 'but for' test asks
What the 'but for' test asks
Would harm have occurred but for defendant's breach?
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969) principle
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969) principle
Breach alone insufficient; must prove breach caused damage
Test for remoteness of damage
Test for remoteness of damage
Whether type of harm was reasonably foreseeable
The Wagon Mound (1961) principle
The Wagon Mound (1961) principle
Damage must be of a foreseeable type
Must precise chain of events be foreseeable?
Must precise chain of events be foreseeable?
No, only the general type of harm
Hughes v Lord Advocate (1962) principle
Hughes v Lord Advocate (1962) principle
Exact sequence need not be foreseeable, only type of harm
The thin-skull rule
The thin-skull rule
Defendant liable for full extent despite victim's vulnerability
Smith v Leech Brain (1962) principle
Smith v Leech Brain (1962) principle
Extent of damage need not be foreseeable (thin-skull rule)