Remoteness Flashcards
What is the test for reasonableness?
The test of reasonable foreseeability: A claimant can only recover if the type of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable at the time the defendant breached their duty of care.
This is an objective test: what was reasonably foreseeable.
What type of harm is too remote?
Case, The damage suffered, (unforeseeable, or allegedly unforeseeable), Foreseeable
damage, Same type?
The Wagon Mound (No 1), Damage by fire, Damage by pollution, No, so too remote.
Tremain v Pike. Weil’s disease, a rare
disease contracted through contact with
rats’ urine, Injury caused by direct contact with rats (eg rate bite), No, so too remote
Bradford v Robinson, Rentals ,Frostbite Cold-related injuries, Yes
Page v Smith, Psychiatric harm, Personal injury generally, physical or psychiatric, Yes
What does it mean that there is no need to foresee the exact way damage occurs?
Once it is established that the type of damage was reasonably foreseeable, there is no need for the defendant to foresee the exact way in which the damage occurred.
Key case: Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837
Facts: Workmen negligently left oil lamps surrounding a hole in the road. The claimant, aged eight, picked up one of the lamps and dropped it into the manhole, where it exploded, causing the claimant to fall into the manhole and suffer severe burns. The type of damage, being damaged
from burns, was foreseeable – for example, it was foreseeable that the claimant might knock over and break the lamp, causing a burn. However, the events as they unfolded were probably not foreseeable.
Held: The harm was not too remote. As long as the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, there is no need to foresee the exact way in which the burns occurred.
What does it mean that there is no need to foresee the extent of the damage?
Once it is established that the type of damage was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent of those damages, even if the extent is greater than that which would normally be expected.
Key case: Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals [1971] 1 QB 88
Facts: The claimant suffered extensive property damage following the defendant’s negligence in causing a chemical explosion. A minor explosion was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s breach. However, the explosion that did occur was of a magnitude which was not
reasonably foreseeable.
Held: The damage was not too remote for the claimant to recover the full extent of the loss. The type of damage that was foreseeable was property damage caused by an explosion. It was irrelevant that the defendant could not foresee the magnitude of such an explosion and so they were liable for the full extent of the property damage.
What is the thin skull rule?
The ‘no need to foresee the extent’ principle applies even if the damage or extent of injury has been aggravated by the claimant’s own weakness. This is the ‘thin skull’ or ‘eggshell skull’ rule; the defendant must take their victim as they find them.
Key case: Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 QB 405
Facts: The defendants negligently burned the claimant. The burn provoked the onset of a preexisting malignant cancer from which the claimant subsequently died.
Held: If the defendant can foresee the original injury ie the type of harm (here, burns), they are responsible for anything that flows from that injury even if the claimant suffers to a greater extent
because of a pre-existing condition. The defendant was liable for all physical damage to the claimant (the type of damage) and this included the cancer and death (the extent of the damage).
The ‘thin skull’ rule also applies even if the damage has been aggravated by the claimant’s own ‘impecuniosity’, ie lack of monetary funds.
Key case: Lagden v O’Connor [2004] 1 AC 1067
Facts: The claimant hired a vehicle on credit while waiting for the defendant’s insurers to repair his car – ‘on credit’ meaning he did not have enough to pay the hire charges, so he agreed to pay them later, and this made the overall charges significantly greater.
Held: It was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would have to borrow money or incur some other kind of expenditure to mitigate his damages, and therefore the defendant was liable for the full extent of the claimant’s economic loss, even though he had suffered to a greater extent
because of his impecuniosity. The court reached this rule by applying the ‘thin skull’ rule – the defendant needs to take the claimant ‘as they find them’.
