Flashcards in Remoteness Deck (22):
What is the general test for remoteness?
Was the claimant's loss reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant's breach? (Wagon Mound (No 1)) = objective test.
Wagon Mound (No 1) facts?
Ship negligently discharged oil onto Sydney harbour. Welding work caused spark which ignited oil and caused property damage to claimant. Workmen had inquired as to whether sparks could cause fire but had been assured they would not. The damage from fire was not foreseeable and so could not be claimed.
How is the general test objective?
Considers what a reasonable person on the defendant's position at the time of the breach would have been able to foresee.
What is added to the general test?
Defendant only liable if the particular type of loss was reasonably foreseeable.
What cases are examples of the wide and narrow approaches to the type of loss test?
Wide = Bradford & Robinson Rentals
Narrow = Tremain v Pike
Tremain v Pike?
Due to employer's breach rats ran around on farm and claimant contract Weil's disease from their urine. At the time the evidence did not support Weil's disease being attributable to urine so not reasonably foreseeable.
Bradford v Robinson Rentals?
A poorly maintained van required windows to be open during driving. Driver contracted frostbite. Col-related injuries were reasonably foreseeable and so frostbite could be claimed by defendant.
Lamb v Camden?
Mrs Lamb's water pipe severed so she left her house, Squatters got in causing theft and fire damage. Lord Denning held that she ought to have insured her house and that the damage caused by the squatters was not reasonably foreseeable.
AG v Hartwell?
A policeman on British Virgin islands shot someone on another island --> when determining whether to take a wide or narrow approach to the type fo loss, no hard and fast rules and depends on what is reasonable on the facts --> POLICY CONSIDERATIONS.
What about the extent of damage?
once it has been established that the type of loss the claimant has suffered was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant will be liable for its full extent even if that is excessive.
Extent of damage main case?
Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals: Negligence caused an explosion,. A minor one was reasonably foreseeable but major was not. As D's actions had caused explosion the full loss of property damage was not too remote.
Thin Skull rule and cases
Defendant must take their claimant as they find him, even if they have a particular condition that aggravates damage.
Smith v Leech Brain
Corr v IBC Vehicles
Page v Smith
Corr v IBC Vehicles?
Injury caused by employer's negligence led the claimant to become clinically depressed and commit suicide. It was enough that the defendants foresaw the original injuries and were responsible from that point onwards.
Smith v Leech Brain
Negligence at a factory led to claimant being splashed with a chemical which triggered a pre-malignant tumour on his lip. The defendants were responsible for the resulting cancer and death.
Page v Smith?
Stress of car accident triggered a recurrence of ME. Personal injury was treated as a single indivisible type of harm.
Thin wallet rule?
Where claimant's impecuniosity exacerbates damage, full extent of damage can still be claimed for.
Lagden v O'Connor.
Lagden v O'Connor?
Defendant caused a car crash. Claimant could not afford a replacement car and had to enter a credit arrangement until the defendant's insurers could repair his car. The defendant was liable for the extra costs this incurred.
There is no need to foresee the exact ethos by which the damage occurs. (Hughes v Lord Advocate)
Hughes v Lord Advocate?
boys playing in a a road fell down a hole and knocked a paraffin lamp which was left unattended. Burns from attended lamp were foreseeable, it dod not matter that the boys had knocked it climbing into the hole.
Dubious method case?
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing : injury at work when asbestos lid cover fell into a vat of zinc and exploded. Damage caused by splashing was the only foreseeable type so no claim.
What case criticised Doughty?
AG v Hartwell