# data[].attributes.headline
Claim 4 - weakened heart - Claimant Roger, Defendant - Quentin/Dr (NHS Trust) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Claim 4 - weakened heart - Claimant Roger, Defendant - Quentin/Dr (NHS Trust) 

# data[].attributes.body
Duty and breach - Quentin's car accident

Break in the chain of causation? if a surgeon, by lack of skill or failure in reasonable care, causes additional damage or aggravates an existing injury and so renders himself liable in damages, the reasonable conclusion must be that his intervention is a new cause (Hogan v Bentinck)

Sue NHS - told he was negligent which caused the infection.

How? Duty - Wilsher

Breached - yes reasonable Dr that position would not have performed the operation negligently (Bolam)

# data[].attributes.headline
Claim 3 - Amputated hand - Claimant - Roger, Defendant - Quentin

# data[].attributes.subject
Claim 3 - Amputated hand - Claimant - Roger, Defendant - Quentin

# data[].attributes.body
Duty and breach as above

Causation - But for test satisfied

Remoteness - £500,000. Entitled more money than foreseen is irrelevant - take your victim as you find them (Smith v Leech Brain)

# data[].attributes.headline
Claim 2 - Cargo of Wood - Claimant - Ship owner, Defendant - Quentin

# data[].attributes.subject
Claim 2 - Cargo of Wood - Claimant - Ship owner, Defendant - Quentin

# data[].attributes.body
Duty and breach as above

Causation - But for established

Remoteness - damage reasonably foreseeable? Defence - isn't reasonably foreseeable - judgement Wagon Mound. Claimant - property damage is foreseeable, it not necessary to foresee the manner or the extent of how the damage was caused. (Hughes v Lord Advocate; Vacwell Engineering)

# data[].attributes.headline
Claim 1  - Car damage - Claimant - Roger, Defendant - Quentin

# data[].attributes.subject
Claim 1  - Car damage - Claimant - Roger, Defendant - Quentin

# data[].attributes.body
Duty - Nettleship v Weston

Breach - Lay person standard of care for driving (Blyth v Birmingham) - a reasonable person would not have driven 'his car at high speed along a dockside'

Causation - But for him driving at speed would the damage have occurred (Barnett v Chelsea)

Remoteness - Wagon Mound No. 1

# data[].attributes.headline
Quentin was driving his car at high speed along a dockside when he lost control of the vehicle, which flipped over and hit and injured Roger. The car was seriously damaged as a result of this accident and caught fire. A burning ember was blown into the open hold of a ship moored at the dockside, where it ignited a cargo of wood. (Quentin managed to exit the vehicle before the car caught fire.)Roger was taken by ambulance to hospital where he had his left hand amputated. Roger is a guitarist in a rock band and earns £500,000 a year from royalties and live performances. Unfortunately, the surgeon who amputated Roger’s hand performed the operation negligently, and Roger developed a serious infection that permanently weakened his heart. Advise Quentin as to the extent of his liability in tort 

# data[].attributes.subject
Quentin was driving his car at high speed along a dockside when he lost control of the vehicle, which flipped over and hit and injured Roger. The car was seriously damaged as a result of this accident and caught fire. A burning ember was blown into the open hold of a ship moored at the dockside, where it ignited a cargo of wood. (Quentin managed to exit the vehicle before the car caught fire.)Roger was taken by ambulance to hospital where he had his left hand amputated. Roger is a guitarist in a rock band and earns £500,000 a year from royalties and live performances. Unfortunately, the surgeon who amputated Roger’s hand performed the operation negligently, and Roger developed a serious infection that permanently weakened his heart. Advise Quentin as to the extent of his liability in tort 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Remoteness The Wagon Mound No. 1 The test of remoteness is that of reasonable foreseeability, by which the kind of damage caused must be reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. Viscount Simmonds "It does not seem consonant with current ideas of justice or morality, that for an

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Causation in Tort Starting Point 'But For' Test Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital But for the Defendant's negligence, would the claimant have suffered the loss? A bit of fun to help you remember! (Warning bad language!) Is it a concurrent or a consecutive cause? But For