Term
| Even if the P could prove that the D's negligent caused the injury, damages may still be denied. Why is this so? |
|
Definition
| The injury in question could be too remote. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- concerned with the question whether damages may be recovered for particular items of the P's loss.
- involves the issue of for how much of the P’s damage is the D liable
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What does the Wang Mound test measure? |
|
Definition
The D will only be liable for a loss or damage that is reasonably foreseeable. |
|
|
Term
Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock & Engineering |
|
Definition
Pr: Wagound mound test inauguration
F:
-
Ship leaking oil
-
Welding operation near by
-
Fire
Held:
-
D non liable
-
Test of remotness of damage
-
Could reasonably forsee the damage.
|
|
|
Term
| Qualifications to the reasonable foresight test |
|
Definition
- Manner of occurance
- Extenet of harm
- Kind of damage
- Egg Shell skull
|
|
|
Term
| Explain manner of occurance |
|
Definition
| As long as the kind of damage is forseeable, the details of how it came about is insignificant |
|
|
Term
| Cases of the manner of occurance |
|
Definition
- Hughes v Lord Advocate
- Ang Chai Ha v Sri Jaya
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Once the kind of damage is foreseeable, the extent of injury need not be foreseeable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-
Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals
|
|
|
Term
| Explain the Egg-Shell Skull rule |
|
Definition
- connected to extent of injury
- negligent act may cause different degree of injury to different person due to a particular person's condition.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Dulieu v White
- Smith v Leach Brain
- Sivakumaran v Yu Pan & anor
|
|
|
Term
| Intervening cause (Novus causa interveniens) |
|
Definition
| if there is other independent cause/external factor which make the P's suffered more serious injury, the D will not be liable for that injury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Dodd Properties v Canterbury City Council
- Liesbosch Dredger v Edison
|
|
|
Term
| Two concepts where Damage too remote |
|
Definition
-
Novus actus interveniens
-
Novus causa interveniens
|
|
|
Term
Three types of Novus actus interveniens |
|
Definition
- P’s himself
- 3rd party
- Natural event
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| As general rule an intervening act breaks the chain of causation and renders the D not liable for the damage caused as a result of the novus actus |
|
|
Term
| Requirement of Novus actus intervenus |
|
Definition
| unreasonable and unforeseeable |
|
|
Term
| There cases of natural event |
|
Definition
Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Govt. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-
Knightley v Johns
-
Oropesa
|
|
|
Term
•Intervening act 3rd party -Exceptions |
|
Definition
-
The act is a natural and probable result of the D's breach of duty
-
D has actually authorized / instigated it
-
The intervening act is done by a person who is not fully responsible for his act
|
|
|
Term
•Intervening act 3rd party -Exceptions cases
|
|
Definition
- Ward v Cannock Chase District Council
- MPAJ v Steven Phoa
- Stansbie v Troman
- Scott v Shepherd
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the P's failure to meet the standard of care required for his own protection, which failure is a contributory cause to his own injury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Can damages be rekovered for certain items
- How much of P's damage is D responsible for
|
|
|
