The following PI & Clinical Negligence practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
Even if the claimant proves:
that the defendant acted negligently (ie in breach of duty), and
that the negligence was in fact the cause of the injury or damage
the defendant will not necessarily be liable for all of the damage.
See Practice Notes: Duty of care in personal injury claims and Breach of the duty of care in personal injury claims.
In order to recover damages, the claimant must also prove that the injury or damage was reasonably foreseeable. If the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, the defendant is not held responsible and the damage is said to be too remote (hence the issue is sometimes referred to as remoteness).
Usually, whether the damage was foreseeable will be obvious.
On occasion, the courts have used the test of foreseeability to limit the consequences for which the defendant is made responsible.
The traditional approach used to be that once negligence had been established, a defendant was liable for all of the damage that followed no matter how extraordinary or unpredictable, provided that it flowed directly from the breach of duty. This ‘direct consequence’ test has now been overruled and is no longer relevant.
The accepted test is now whether the type of damage was reasonably foreseeable at the time. Damage is recover
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
This Practice Note considers proprietary estoppel from a generic standpoint.For industry specific guidance on proprietary estoppel, see Practice Notes:•Estoppel and property law•Mortgages by estoppelProprietary estoppel—what is it?Unlike the other forms of estoppel (see Practice Note: Estoppel—what,
An ad hoc arbitration is any arbitration in which the parties have not selected an institution to administer the arbitration. This offers parties flexibility as to the conduct of the arbitration, but less external support for the process. It can be quicker than institutional arbitration but not if
This Practice Note discusses the common law doctrine of privity of contract; the equitable and statutory exceptions to it; how the doctrine affects enforcing a contract against a third party and what happens when, notwithstanding the lack of privity, a contract has an indirect effect on a third
This Practice Note is an archive of news from the Loan Market Association (LMA) on LMA documentation and related topics. It covers LMA updates from early 2013 to January 2016. For the latest LMA developments since January 2016, see Practice Note: Loan Market Association (LMA)—latest news on
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.