{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Negligence_Elements

D argued that the type of metal illness was extremely

Info iconThis preview shows pages 28–30. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
D argued that the type of metal illness was extremely rare and therefore not RF, in other words too remote. The HC rejected this argument, it’s not necessary that the particular mental illness be RF. All that is required is that it is RF that the P could develop some type of mental illness, not the specific type. The characterization of the injury is very important. If it was characterized by the court as the specific type of mental injury, where the court characterized the injury as a general mental illness. (d) Meaning of ‘Same Kind of Damage’ Wagon Mound cases: property damage caused by fire Hughes : personal injury caused by fire Mount Isa Mines : mental disturbance Tremain v Pike : personal injury caused by a particular disease Doughty : personal injury caused by a certain kind of eruption Tremain v Pike [1969] 3 All ER 1303 – Tension with Mount Isa . Facts : P worked on D’s farm. While working on the farm, contracted a rare disease that was carried by rats. He sued the D for not keeping the rap population under control on the farm, he said that amounted to a breach and the failure to keep the population under control caused the disease. The disease was very rare. While some types of injury resulting from rats where RF this particular type was not RF. They said that this disease was an entirely different type of injury normally caused by rats. Doughty v Turner [1964] 1 QB 518 (CB 364) – Tension with Hughes . 28
Background image of page 28

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Facts : P was injured at work when an asbestos cover fell into a hot cauldron of liquid. The asbestos cover reacted to cause an eruption which burned the P. This never happened before and it was not known that the asbestos cover would react the same way. P argued that it was RF that if the cover fell into liquid the liquid would splash and he would be injured because the liquid was corrosive. He argued that the type of injury was a kind of splashing related injury. The court of appeal held the injury was not RF because it was unknown that such an explosion could occur. Reconciling the cases Possibility of unstated policy considerations – although does not help with The general, but not exact, manner in which the injury occurred must be foreseeable: Nader , per McHugh JA - Nader v Urban Transit Authority of NSW (1985) 2 NSWLR 501 (CB 368 and 377). Exam Property damage by fire is one kind of damage Property damage by fouling of oil is a different kind of damage Personal injury by fire is a relevant type of damage Metal illness of any form is one kind of damage (d) The ‘Thin Skull Rule’ – Extent of Harm Need Not be Reasonably Foreseeable The “thin skull” rule If the defendant negligently injures the plaintiff, the defendant cannot complain that the plaintiff suffered more harm than a normal person would because the plaintiff had some special susceptibility to injury When does the “thin skull” rule apply? 1.
Background image of page 29
Image of page 30
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page28 / 48

D argued that the type of metal illness was extremely rare...

This preview shows document pages 28 - 30. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online