causation recap

Question 1

What is the principle of remoteness in tort law?

Answer 1

Remoteness determines whether the harm caused by the defendant is sufficiently closely linked (legally causative) to their negligent act. It ensures that not all consequences of negligence are actionable—only those that are reasonably foreseeable.

Exam Tip:

Always distinguish between factual causation (“but for” test) and legal causation (remoteness).

Use The Wagon Mound (No. 1) to show the shift from strict liability (Re Polemis) to foreseeability.

Weak Knowledge Expansion:

Compare Re Polemis (direct consequences test) with The Wagon Mound (foreseeability test). Why did the law change?

Question 2

What is the key rule established in The Wagon Mound (No. 1)?

Answer 2

Defendants are only liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable as a result of their negligence.

Exam Tip:

Contrast with Re Polemis (where even unforeseeable damage was actionable).

Mention that The Wagon Mound is Privy Council, not strictly binding but highly persuasive.

Weak Knowledge Expansion:

Why did The Wagon Mound overturn Re Polemis? (Policy reasons: fairness, limiting liability, encouraging reasonable care.)

Question 3

Does the exact way harm occurs need to be foreseeable?

Answer 3

No—only the general type of harm must be foreseeable (Hughes v Lord Advocate).

Exam Tip:

Use Hughes (paraffin lamp explosion) vs. Doughty (explosion from molten metal).

Explain why Hughes succeeded (burns from lamp foreseeable) but Doughty failed (explosion unforeseeable).

Weak Knowledge Expansion:

How does Jolley v Sutton LBC (boat collapse) extend Hughes?

Why is Bradford v Robinson (frostbite) an unusual application?