Flashcards in Remoteness Deck (13):
The Wagon Mound
Damage was too remote when that kind of damage was unforeseeable. Foreseeability judged by the standard of the reasonable person at the time of the tort.
Smith v Leech Bran
Man sustained burn while working then got cancer on burn site. Was this harm foreseeable? Damage was the burn, cancer extended the damages available. If one type of harm is foreseeable, extends the damages that can be claimed for, under the Wagon Mound test.
Dorset Yacht v Home Office
Damage was of a type which was "the very kind of thing" that the officers were meant to be preventing.
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group
GP argued he could escape liability because the hospital was also negligent, and so the injury may have occurred anyway, held both the conduct of the hospital and the GP was causative.
Injured claimant walked down stairs with no handrail, jumped to bottom when he began to fall, was responsible for his own further injuries - Novus Actus.
Damages sought by relatives of man who commit suicide in police custody, did not break the chain of causation or duty to prevent suicide would be empty.
SAAMCO v York Montagu
Properties were negligently over valued, losses were suffered as a result which were increased by the collapse of the property market. Whole losses were recoverable, even those relating to the drop in market. Factual question - to do with scope of duty, should ask which consequences are attributable to the breach.
Bank of Kuwait v Commercial Property Services
Properties were overvalued, market fell increasing losses, amount recoverable was limited to amount of overvaluation, decided differently to SAAMCO.
Chester v Afshar
Scope of duty approach taken - majority - purpose of duty was to protect autonomy, dissent - function of duty was to make safe.
Old approach - damage not too remote when it was the direct consequence of the tort.
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Lamp left near open man hole, was unattended, boys took lamp down the hole and an explosion occurred. Held: wasn't too remote, the fact that the boys may suffer some harm from the lamp was foreseeable even if the manner of the injury wasn't.
Jolley v Sutton LBC
Risk was that the boys would "meddle with the boat at some risk of physical injury", actual injury fell within this description.