General Negligence-Remoteness Flashcards
Test for remoteness.
D is only liable for damage if it is a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty.
Case for remoteness.
The Wagon Mound (1961)
Facts of The Wagon Mound.
D spilt oil into water when refuelling a ship.
Oil spread onto C’s wharf.
C was doing some work involving welding.
Sparks from welding ignited oil which caused a fire, damaging the wharf.
Court said that, although pollution damage to claimant’s wharf was foreseeable, fire damage was not.
3 instances where damages can be claimed even if it is not entirely reasonably foreseeable.
- Where losses occurred are of same type as that which was foreseeable but more extreme.
- Where loss is foreseeable but precise manner in which it occurred was not.
- Thin-skull rule
Case for where losses occurred are of same type as that which was foreseeable but are more extreme.
Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)
Facts of Bradford.
Employer required C to drive an old van across country in very cold weather.
Van had no heating.
C suffered frostbite.
As it was foreseeable that he would suffer some sort of cold-related injury his employee was liable. (even though it was perhaps not predictable that the injury would be as extreme as frostbite.)
Case for where loss is foreseeable but not the precise manner in which it occurred.
Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)
Facts of Hughes.
2 boys injured when playing with unattended paraffin lamp in a manhole.
As it was foreseeable that some sort of burning injury would result, Ds were liable for leaving manhole unattended.
Case for thin-skull rule.
Smith v Leech Brain (1962)
Facts of Smith.
C suffered a minor splash by molten metal that caused a burn on his face.
Burn triggered a pre-existing cancerous condition and he died.
As some minor injury was foreseeable, there was liability as you “take your victim as you find them.”
