4. Negligence: Causation And Remoteness Of Damage

Front 1

4. Negligence: causation and remoteness of damage/State and explain the basic rule defining the causal link between the breach of duty and the damage

Back 1

The basic rule is the 'but for test.' I.e., would the damage have occurred but for the defendant's actions?

Front 2

4. Negligence: causation and remoteness of damage/Identify the causal link that has to be established in hypothetical situations

Back 2

In hypothetical situations, (if the defendant is alleged to have omitted to do something he should have done), what needs to be shown is that the damage would not have occurred had he not made that omission.

Front 3

4. Negligence: causation and remoteness of damage/Identify circumstances in which the basic rule produces unacceptable results and may have to be modified

Back 3

1. Where there are two separate causes of damage (e.g., two shooters)

2. Where there is uncertainty of the facts (e.g., an action which usually causes damage may or may not have caused damage in this case)

Front 4

4. Negligence: causation and remoteness of damage/Explain the policy considerations underlying those modifications.

Back 4

Need to look up cases but his could be the following:
- It would be wrong to let the actions of the tortfeasors go unpunished
- it would be wrong to deny the claimant compensation.

Front 5

4. Negligence: causation and remoteness of damage/Explain the concept of remoteness of damage in general and identify the basic rules of remoteness in the tort of negligence

Back 5

1. Remoteness of damage is the extent to which other events intervened after the defendant's actions to contribute to the damage

2. The test for remoteness is forseeability.

Front 6

4. Negligence: causation and remoteness of damage/Identify the policy reasons for choosing the rule of remoteness of damage

Back 6

Need to look up what the underlying policy considerations for this rule are.

Front 7

4. Negligence: causation and remoteness of damage/Explain the concept of new and intervening cause and relate it (a) to the actions of third parties and (b) to actions by the claimant subsequent to the negligence
of the defendant.

Back 7

1. A new and intervening cause is a cause that could have been foreseen by the defendant.

2. Criminal conduct usually breaks the chain unless it was the very thing that was supposed to have been guarded against.

3. Gross negligence by a hospital unconnected with the original injury would break the chain by normal negligence would not.

4. Unexpected conduct by the claimant himself will break the chain unless it is the very conduct which was supposed to have been guarded against.