Damage

Damage

To claim damages against the defendants a claimant must prove that him/her damages or injury is caused by the defendant's breach of duty and the damage or injury is not too remote.

'But for' test
To prove the damages of the claimant is caused by the defendant's breach of duty , the court uses the 'But for' test. The test simply ask 'But for the defendant's breach of duty,  would the damage or injury have occurred?". In Barnett v Chelsea, the held the defendants not liable as the claimant would have died anyway regardless of the defendant's breach of duty. However, there are factors that could affect  the test and these are;

- In Wilsher v Essex AHA, the court held that if the damages to the claimant is caused by other factors aside from the defendant's breach of duty, the most significant cause will be held in account for the damages which in this case was not the defendant's breach.

- In Smith v Littlewoods, the court held the novus actus intervienes as the cause of the damage to the claimant.

Remoteness of damage

It must be prove that the damages of the claimant are not too remote.

- In Wagon Mound No.1, it was held that the type of damage or harm must be reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach. For example, in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co., the explosion that occur when an asbestos cover fell in  some molten liquid was held to be too remote.

- In addition to the first rule,  if the type of damage suffered is reasonably foreseeable,  it does not matter if it occurred in an unforeseeable way. In Hughes v Lord Advocate and Bradford v Robinson Rentals, the courts in both cases held that the type of damage that is foreseeable and that actually occurred is the same and therefore the damages in both cases are not too remote.

- Lastly, the 'thin skull' rule applies in remoteness of damage meaning defendants will need to take their victim as they find them. This means that if the claimant suffered more serious injuries than normal because of personal characteristics, the defendant will be still be liable as in Smith v Leech Brain and Co..