Negligence - remoteness

Question 1

Damage must be of reasonably foreseeable type (3)

Answer 1

• Wagon Mound (No 1)
  o Remoteness test was reasonable foreseeability of harm
  o Balances competing interests – a man must eb considered responsible for the probable consequences of his act, to demand more is too harsh
• Hughes v Lord Advocate
  o The precise sequence of events does not have to be foreseeable
• Jolley v Sutton
  o All have to show is that D bears responsibility for reasonably foreseeable type of loss not the specific sequence of events

Question 2

Eggshell skull principle (2)

Answer 2

• Smith v Leach Brain
  o Where the damage is (i) of a reasonably foreseeable type and where (ii) C’s particular susceptibility to harm means that his or her losses extend beyond the threshold of reasonable foreseeability, he or she may still be able to recover compensation
  o Smith working with molten metal. Splashed lip due to lack of care from employer. Smith had abnormal risk of cancer so splash caused his death. Eggshell Skull principle meant possible to recover for further loss
• Sayers v Perrin
  o Through negligence D is responsible for electric shock – suffering shock was reasonably foreseeable type of harm
  o Shock triggered polio – beyond threshold of foreseeability which could be recovered for further

Question 3

Critical commentary for remoteness (2)

Answer 3

• Fleming
  o Foreseeability of harm has a wide margin of tolerance and is largely influenced by individual experience and imagination – gives judges a large amount of discretion
• Leon Green
  o There will never be an uncontroversial formula to remoteness – in hard cases there must be an exercise of judgment