Negligence: Remoteness & Loss

Question 1

In remoteness, what must the claimant prove?

Answer 1

That their loss was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s breach

Question 2

What is the test for remoteness?

Answer 2

Is the specific type of harm suffered by the claimant reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s breach?

This is an objective test (ie. what type of loss would a reasonable man in the defendant’s position at the time of the breach have been able to foresee?)

Do not need to foresee extent/magnitude of loss or exact manner in which loss occurs

Question 3

What are the two provisos to the remoteness test?

Answer 3

Specific type proviso

Thin skull proviso

Question 4

What is the specific type proviso in remoteness?

Answer 4

If the specific type of damage is unforeseeable, ask:

Does this injury fall within a foreseeable type of harm?

(eg. loss was frostbite, foreseeable loss was cold-related injury)

Question 5

What is the ‘thin skull’ rule?

Answer 5

You must take your victim as you find them (including their financial situation)

eg. couldn’t foresee claimant had cancer but could foresee that claimant would get burnt (Smith v Leech Brain)

eg. couldn’t foresee claimant’s suicide but could foresee injuries from breach & have to take clinically depressed victim as find them (Corr v IBC Vehicles)