Liability in negligence – damage
Liability in Negligence
Duty of care + Breach + Damage = Negligence
Damage
Damage may be:
- To a person
- To property
There are two elements linked to damage:
- Causation, and
- Remoteness
Causation
Factual causation in Tort
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)
- 3 nightwatchmen went to A&E after drinking tea made by another man.
- They were told to go home and see how they felt.
- Actually, they had been poisoned by the cup of tea, (arsenic)
- One of the men went home and died.
- A widow of one of the men sued.
- Regardless of what the hospital staff did, the man would have died – the dose was so high.
Intervening events
- Intervening acts can prevent someone from being liable.
Remoteness of Damage
- Where factual causation is shown, you must also show that the damage is not too remote to
be claimed for.
- This rule comes from a Privy Council case heard in Australia.
- Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock
Wagon Mound (1961)
- Fuel had negligently been spilt from the defendant’s ship in Sydney Harbour.
- This spread to a wharf where welding was being conducted.
- The oil caught fire. This burnt down the wharf.
- The court determined that the damage to the wharf by oil was foreseeable, but the fire was
not.
The test we use to assess remoteness is whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable.
Liability in Negligence
Duty of care + Breach + Damage = Negligence
Damage
Damage may be:
- To a person
- To property
There are two elements linked to damage:
- Causation, and
- Remoteness
Causation
Factual causation in Tort
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)
- 3 nightwatchmen went to A&E after drinking tea made by another man.
- They were told to go home and see how they felt.
- Actually, they had been poisoned by the cup of tea, (arsenic)
- One of the men went home and died.
- A widow of one of the men sued.
- Regardless of what the hospital staff did, the man would have died – the dose was so high.
Intervening events
- Intervening acts can prevent someone from being liable.
Remoteness of Damage
- Where factual causation is shown, you must also show that the damage is not too remote to
be claimed for.
- This rule comes from a Privy Council case heard in Australia.
- Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock
Wagon Mound (1961)
- Fuel had negligently been spilt from the defendant’s ship in Sydney Harbour.
- This spread to a wharf where welding was being conducted.
- The oil caught fire. This burnt down the wharf.
- The court determined that the damage to the wharf by oil was foreseeable, but the fire was
not.
The test we use to assess remoteness is whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable.
