Principles of Negligence - causation and remoteness of damage

Which case is associated with the principle of "Factual causation"?

• Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)

• Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

• Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)

• Smith v Leech Brain and Co. (1962)

In which case was the judgment that "Consequence foreseeable even if exact cause of injury not foreseeable"?

• Doughty v Turner Asbestos (1964)

• The Wagon Mound (1961)

• Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

• Smith v Leech Brain and Co. (1962)

What is the principle associated with the case "Smith v Leech Brain and Co. (1962)"?

• Factual causation

• Foreseeability

• Remoteness of damage

• Eggshell skull/Take your victim as you find them

Which case is related to the judgment "Consequence foreseeable even if more severe"?

• Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)

• Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

• Smith v Leech Brain and Co. (1962)

• Doughty v Turner Asbestos (1964)

What was the judgment in the case "The Wagon Mound (1961)"?

• Consequence foreseeable even if exact cause of injury not foreseeable

• Consequence foreseeable even if more severe

• Consequence not known so injury not foreseeable

• Defendant liable for all consequences of negligence

What was the ratio of the case Doughty V Turner (1964)?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

If the consequence is not known, then the injury is not foreseeable