In order for D to be liable in negligence, his breach of duty must have caused the loss or damage complained of. It must then be proved that the loss is not too ‘remote’.
This recording explains
• the ‘but for’ test for factual causation and how it applies
• the various possible exceptions to the ‘but for’ test (material contribution to the damage, material contribution to the risk of damage) and the ‘loss of chance’ approach)
• the approaches to ‘supervening’ events
• when another factor will constitute a ‘novus actus interveniens’
• the distinction, in remoteness, between issues of kind, extent and manner of causing damage.
Lecturer: Gianni Vuolo
Duration: 64 minutes (approx)
Order securely online and get immediate access to the lecture.
More recordings in the Law of Tort
- Negligence – liability for words and economic loss Q&A
- Negligence: liability for omissions and nervous shock Q&A
- Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher Q&A
- Occupiers Liability Q&A 2
- Tort part A 2022 – Can the Supreme Court halt the ongoing expansion of vicarious liability?
- Common law torts relating to land.
- Public bodies
- Negligence – economic loss
- Liability for omissions
- Causation and remoteness
- Breach of duty
- Negligence – psychiatric harm
- Defamation Q&A
- Negligence – psychiatric harm Q&A