Introduction to the Tort of Negligence
- Damage Caused by the Breach
(A) Causation in Fact
The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ the negligence of the defendant. This test is best illustrated by Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital.
(b) Multiple Causes
Where there are a number of possible causes of injury, the claimant must prove that the defendant’s breach of duty caused the harm or was a material contribution. See: Wilsher v Essex AHA.
(C) Remoteness of Damage
The Privy Council have held that a person is responsible only for consequences that could reasonably have been anticipated. See The Wagon Mound.
The defendant will be responsible for the harm caused to a claimant with a weakness or predisposition to a particular injury or illness because of the “thin skull” rule. See: Smith v Leech Brain & Co.
If harm is foreseeable but occurs in an unforeseeable way, there may still be liability. See: Hughes v Lord Advocate.
However, there are two cases which go against the decision in Hughes v Lord Advocate: Doughty v Turner Manufacturing and Crossley v Rawlinson.
The damage must be of the same type or kind as the harm that could have been foreseen, as in Bradford v Robinson Rentals.
The defendant will still be liable, provided the type of harm and its manner was reasonably foreseeable, if the extent of the harm was not foreseeable. See Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals.