The question was whether the actions of the deceased had broken the chain of causation when he intervened in an attempt to save property. ‘This rule of the ‘reasonable and probable consequence’ is a key that opens several locks; for it not only fixes the nature and the measure of the duty to take care, but it may also aid in determining whether the causal nexus is complete and, perhaps, whether the damages claimed are too remote.’
Lord Justice Clerk Cooper
1944 SC 237
Cited – Bourhill v Young’s Executor HL 5-Aug-1942
When considering claims for damages for shock, the court only recognised the action lying where the injury by shock was sustained ‘through the medium of the eye or the ear without direct contact.’ Wright L said: ‘No doubt, it has long ago been . .
Cited – Glasgow Corporation v Muir HL 16-Apr-1943
The House considered the proper test to define the standard of care that must be adopted by the reasonable man in a claim for negligence.
Held: Lord Clauson said that the test is whether the person owing the duty of care ‘had in contemplation . .
Cited – Simmons v British Steel plc HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was injured at work as a consequence of the defender’s negligence. His injuries became more severe, and he came to suffer a disabling depression.
Held: the Inner House had been wrong to characterise the Outer House decision as . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2021; Ref: scu.196524