Damage: Remoteness

[Flash Card 1 of 1]

• damage not too remote: limits D's liability to reasonably justified / ensures C not profit / aids future liabilities assessment

Remoteness test

• cargo / D liable all loss which flowed from his conduct / direct causation test: foreseeability relevant in determining culpability not compensation (Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921])
• D not liable: oil damage foreseeable but fire too remote / reasonable foreseeability test: if reasonable person not foreseen the damage cannot be recovered (The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961])
• playing on abandoned ship / The Wagon Mound test approved (Jolley v Sutton [2000])

Similar-in-type rule

• not too remote: if type of injury reasonably foreseeable / even if precise way caused not
• paraffin lamps / D liable: injury by burning foreseeable / circumstances unexpected ( Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] )
• too remote: rat urine not rat bite / narrow interpretation (Tremain v Pike [1969])
• HoL wider construction / Wagon Mound test & Hughes v Lord Advocate approach / D liable: not necessary distinguish between physical injuries / precise nature of injury not need to be foreseeable (Jolley v Sutton [2000])

Egg-shell skull rule

• take your V as you find him / type of injury foreseeable but not extent (due to C's special characteristics)
• aggravated V's unknown pre-existing cancerous condition / D liable: explicitly followed Wagon Mound test: burn injury foreseeable / extent was not but did not prevent liability ( Smith v Leech Brain [1962] )
• tetanus injection reaction / reasonably foreseeable P would require medical treatment/ D liable for consequences (Robinson v Post Office [1974])
• Cs impecuniosity / may increase cost of loss / hire car credit / D liable ( Lagden v O'Connor [2004] )

bits of law