Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Tort 5: Causation & remoteness I
Member rating:
(3 votes)
| Words:
| Submitted: Thu Jul 11 2002
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
Tort 5: Causation & remoteness I But for test: This is the historical view of an event; hindsight. What position would the claimant have been in BUT FOR the negligence of the Defendant? If it is, on the balance of probabilities, the same, then there is no case to answer. However, if the claimant would have been perfectly OK, BUT FOR the Defendant then the Defendant owes the claimant compensation: there are other conditions to satisfy, but this is the first one that the Plaintiff must overcome. The question is very simplistic, but problems occur when the answer is "I don't know" or "I'm not sure." There must be a causal link between the actions of the Defendant and the resultant damage. If there is no causal link, then it is too remote to allow a successful claim. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428. The Plaintiff's husband attended the A&E,...
To see the full version of this document, and 143,642 others
