The test for these purposes is a balance between proximity and remoteness: To clarify the nature of the judicial process, in Lamb v Camden LBC,[1] Lord Denning said: In other words, the court's main task is to do justice as between these parties in their present situation.
2),[2] the claimant suffered head injuries and brain damage as a result of the defendant's negligent driving, which led to a personality disorder.
The illegal nature of his conduct was not raised at the civil trial, and the claimant was held entitled to damages to compensate him for being imprisoned following his conviction.
In separate proceedings, the three women assaulted obtained a judgment for compensation, so he sought indemnification from the negligent driver and his insurers for the amounts he had been ordered to pay.
He was to receive aftercare services in the community under s117 Act 1983, but his mental condition deteriorated and, two months later, he fatally stabbed a stranger at a London Underground station.
He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility and was ordered to be detained in a secure hospital.
Lord Hoffmann in South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd[4] gave a classic example.
The purpose of the doctor's duty to take care is to protect the mountaineer against injuries caused by the failure of the knee, not rock falls.
Thus the question for the courts was: were the owners liable for the collision because they sent their ship to sea without properly licensed officers?
The real cause of the loss was that the terminal bonuses were not guaranteed and were adversely affected by the downturn in Equitable Life's fortunes.
Sir Colin Mackay, in Joseph Simon Love v Halfords Ltd., relies on them, noting that they have been "often-cited".
[6][8] In Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries[9] the Lords were asked to determine the cause of repetitive strain injury endured by a typist.
Lord Steyn posed the question, "That immediately raises the point that there must be an explanation for the fact that she contracted PDA4.
The doctor's reasonable decision to provide the standard treatment was therefore not the relevant cause of the brain damage because the claimant would not have been injected "but for" the defendant's negligence.
[13] The general rule is that the original defendant will be held responsible for harm caused by a third party as a direct result of his or her negligence, provided it was a highly likely consequence.
[15] In practice, however, the requirement that the third party intervention will usually break the chain and, at the very least, the liability to pay compensation representing the totality of the loss or damage will be apportioned between the two or more tortfeasors.
So, for example, if A injures V, it is foreseeable that an ambulance will be called, that paramedics will lift and carry V, and that there will be a journey back to the hospital.
Recent medical negligence cases suggest tacit recognition of a more rights-based approach to damage.
Both purport to provide rational, reasoned, independent, unbiased processes concerned with the objective assessment of evidence.