remoteness

Question 1

Test of foreseeability

Answer 1

Wagon Mound (No.1): the kind of damage must be foreseeable, but not the precise mechanism by which it arose
Jolley v Sutton: type of damage was foreseeable (some personal injury from dabbling with the cruiser), the mechansim by which it comes about need not be foreseeable

Question 2

‘egg shell skull’ claimants

Answer 2

Loughane v Smith: if personal injury is a foreseeable consequence, then the fact that they may be more severe than expected does not deprive the injured party from being entitled to recover
Smith v Leech Brain & Co: it was reasonably foreseeable that any employee would suffer some personal injury as a result of the accident, and so D had to take C the way they found him- predisposition to formation of cancerous cells and all

Question 3

‘Scope of duty’

Answer 3

Chester v Afshar: failure to warn cases, risk that manifested must be the one that was not warned about otherwise will be too remote
South Australia Asset Management Corp (SAAMCO) v York Montague (Lord Hoffman obiter example): even foreseeable damage has to be fairly regarded as within the risk created by the breach
- mountaineer presents himself at the doctor’s asking for a physical evaluation, so he can go on mountain
- doctor clears him but has missed an injured knee (breach), mountaineer goes on mountain (causal link)
- avalanche and head injury- doctor not liable, scope of duty was to undertake a physical examination for the purposes of expedition on the mountain
- if his knee had given out, the doctor would be liable, but he’s not liable for the avalanche