# data[].attributes.headline
Claim 4 - Roger's weakened heart - Claimant, defendant - Quentin/Doctor

# data[].attributes.subject
Claim 4 - Roger's weakened heart - Claimant, defendant - Quentin/Doctor

# data[].attributes.body
Duty and breach

Causation

1) Quentin crash

2) Dr's negligence

Hogan v Bentinck - if a surgeon, by lack of skill or failure in reasonable care, causes additional damage or aggravates an existing injury...

Claimant will argue that the infection resulted from the hand operation. But for the Dr's negligence (Barnett) in conducting the operation he wouldn't have suffered the weakened heart.

Remoteness - manner may not have been foreseen, personal injury is foreseen therefore liable (Hughes)

# data[].attributes.headline
Claim 3 Roger claimant - hand amputated - Defendant - Quentin/Doctor (NHS trust)

# data[].attributes.subject
Claim 3 Roger claimant - hand amputated - Defendant - Quentin/Doctor (NHS trust)

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

Breach as above

Causation -

1 Car crash

2) Doctor's negligence

But for Dr's negligence he would still have had his hand amputated. There is no break in the chain of causation. Quentin remains liable.

£500k -Remoteness - Wagon Mound. Was personal injury reasonably foreseeable? Yes. Extent of the damage is claimable - Smith v Leech Brain, Vacwell Engineering

# data[].attributes.headline
Claim 2 - Ship owner claimant, defendant - Quentin/manufacturer? - Damage - cargo wood

# data[].attributes.subject
Claim 2 - Ship owner claimant, defendant - Quentin/manufacturer? - Damage - cargo wood

# data[].attributes.body
Same duty and breach.

Causation? But for established

Remoteness - Claimant will argue it is foreseeable physical damage to property. Manner is irrelevant - Hughes v Lord Advocate.

Extent - Vacwell Engineering

Defence - Wagon Mound - has to be foreseeable rather than a natural consequence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Claim 1 - Roger claimant, defendant - Quentin - Damaged car

# data[].attributes.subject
Claim 1 - Roger claimant, defendant - Quentin - Damaged car

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

Breach - Blyth v Birmingham - standard of care of a reasonable driver - breach as a reasonable driver wouldn't have driven 'at high speed along a dockside'

Causation - Barnett v Chelsea - But for his negligence

Remoteness - Wagon Mound - was damage to the car reasonably foreseeable? Yes.

# 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