Negligence: Proof of Consequential Damage

In my previous articles, I wrote about the meaning of negligence and things that should be in place for the courts to recognise the existence of negligence. Today we will be moving on to the 3rd requirements which is the consequential damage.

A plaintiff sues in negligence must establish that the defendant told him a duty of care. 2. The defendant was in breach of a duty of care and 3. The breach of the duty of care caused damage to the plaintiff.

Once it is established that a duty of care is owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant is in breach of that date the plaintiff must then prove that he has suffered damage as a result of the breach. Consequential damage in its simplest meaning is the injury or harm suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the negligent act of the defendant. In looking at the consequential damage suffered by the plaintiff, the court would usually have a recourse to the causation of damage and remoteness of damage. causation of damage and remoteness of damage are concerned with the questions of whether damages may be recovered from the defendant for particular items of the plaintiff's loss.

Causation of damage (causation in fact)

it is only if the defendant's breach of Duty cause damage that he'll be liable to the plaintiff. It is not enough if the defendant admits to his carelessness as this in itself may not entitle the plaintiff to judgement unless he could show that his damage was caused by the admitted carelessness. sometimes it is a funny thing to determine whether the defendant's actions lead to damage suffered by the plaintiff. So they could applies the 'but-for' test to determine whether it was the defendant's breach of Duty that caused the damage.

The 'but-for'test states that if the damage would not have occurred, but for the defendant's negligence, then his negligence is the cause of the damage sustained by the plaintiff. But if the damage would have occurredd anyway,then the defendant's negligence is not the cause and the defendant will not be liable in negligence.

An example of a case where the but for test was used was the case of Barnett vs Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee. The plaintiff's husband was taken to the defendants hospital when he complained of vomiting after drinking tea. The doctor was called by nurses on duty by telephone but he told them to go home and consult another doctor in the morning. Later that same day, the plaintiff's husband died of arsenic poisoning. In failing to examine the deceased,the doctor was negligent and in breach of his duty of care, but the breach was not the cause of the death, because even if the plaintiff's husband had been examined and treated with proper care, the probability was that it would have been impossible to save his life.

The 'but-for'test is just an aid sister the ultimate cause of damage to a plaintiff can be evaluated with common sense. Sometimes the circumstances surrounding the case is enough to tell weather the plaintiff's injury had been caused by the defendant's breach of Duty.

Remoteness of damage

After determining the issue of causation, the court looks at the question, "for what consequences would a defendant be held liable?" The consequences of a man's conduct may be endless but then his liability cannot be endless. Example, if you negligently pour water on someone, Jordan 12 you the water has been polluted by acid and the person receives burns. You have to take the person to the hospital. When he was in the hospital, someone explode a bomb and the person whom you had injured loses his leg due to the bomb blast. You are pouring contaminated water the person was out of negligence, but for which of the series of consequence you need to be held responsible? This is the problem of remoteness of damage.

The answer to those questions is that, if a reasonable man would have foreseen any damage to the plaintiff as likely to result from his act, then he is liable for all the direct consequences of it suffered by the plaintiff. This means that from the example I gave above, you will only be held liable for pouring water containing acid on the plaintiff. It was unforeseen that the hospital would be bombed thereby leading to other series of consequences.

a defendant does not need to force see all the details of the injury before he is held liable in negligence. it is enough that a proper thinking person in the society knows that this is the likely consequence of such an act committed by the defendant. I Hughes vrs Lord Advocate, post office workers open the manhole in the street and in the evening left the open manhole covered by a tent, unattended but surrounded by warning kerosene lamps. The plaintiff, an eight-year-old boy, took one of the lamps into the tentand while playing with it they stumbled over it and the lamp fell into the manhole. There was a violent explosion which caused by severe injuries. The post office workers we are headliner bill because they should have anticipated that boys of that age might take a lamb into that shelter and that this might lead to severe damage. Sometimes, it is immaterial that the kind of damage suffered was not foreseen by the defendant. most times it lies in the discretion of the court to determine forseability of damage stop.

What's the plane ticket able to prove that the injury he suffered as a direct consequence of the defendant's breach of Duty, then he has discharge himself of his burden. The burden then shifts to the defendant to prove that he was not negligent.

Thanks for reading 💖