Tort Law: Negligence (Legal Causation)

Explanation
In the WAGON MOUND (NO 1) case, it was determined that the extensive damage caused by the fire was not reasonably foreseeable. This is because the harm caused by the fire was not of the same kind as the harm that could have been reasonably anticipated from the thin layer of oil on the water. Therefore, there was a break in the chain of causation, and the defendant was not held liable for the damage caused.

Explanation
The correct answer is Tremain v Pike. In this case, a worker contracted WEILS DISEASE as a result of contact with rat urine in a rat-infested field. The court held that this consequence was not reasonably foreseeable, as rat bites and contaminated food were foreseeable but not contracting a disease. This case is different from the others mentioned, where the courts found that the harm was reasonably foreseeable based on previous similar incidents.

Explanation
In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the court held that the defendant, who was a government employee, was liable for the injuries caused to a child due to their negligence. The defendant left a manhole open overnight, with a tent covering it and parafin lamps lit around it. It was foreseeable that leaving parafin lamps around could lead to burns, especially if children were present. Therefore, the defendant should have taken reasonable precautions to prevent such accidents from occurring. The court found the defendant negligent in failing to ensure the safety of the area and held them liable for the child's injuries.

Explanation
In Smith v Leech Brain, the court established the "thin (egg shell) skull rule," which means that if the type of damage is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the entire damage regardless of the extent. In this case, the claimant's lip was splashed with molten metal, which activated a pre-cancerous growth and caused the development of cancer. Despite the growth being a special factor, the employer was still held liable for the entire damage because the type of harm caused by the molten metal was foreseeable.

Explanation
In the case of Knightly v Johns, the police officer's negligent act of driving the wrong way broke the chain of causation. The claimant initially sued the original defendant, but since the police officer's actions were an intervening cause that led to the collision, the liability of the original defendant lapsed. Therefore, Knightly v Johns is the correct answer as it exemplifies how a later negligent act can break the chain of causation and release the original defendant from liability.

Explanation
In McKew v Holland, the claimant suffered an injury and then engaged in an act that worsened the damage. This act of not using the handrail while walking down the stairs can be considered an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation. This means that the claimant's actions contributed to the worsening of their injuries, and therefore, they may be held partially responsible for the outcome.