PQ (Remoteness)

Question 1

What is the normal rule for negligence?

Answer 1

• unforeseeable losses are too remote

exceptions
- if physical injury is unforeseeable. C will be entitled to sue A for economic loss or psychiatric injury

Question 2

What is the rule for intentional torts?

Answer 2

any losses suffered by the victim as a direct consequence of that tort will not be too remote

Question 3

What is the current test of remoteness?

Answer 3

Reasonably foreseeability test

to determine liability, the damage must of such a kind as the reasonable man should have foreseen [Wagon Mound (No. 1) ]

Question 4

How do you apply the foreseeability test?

Answer 4

D only needs to have reasonably foreseen that C would suffer a kind of loss

1) Does not have to foresee the way the loss occurred
2) Does not have to foresee the extent of the losses (thin skull rule)

Question 5

How do you define the way the loss occurred?

Answer 5

1) Wide definition: Hughes v Lord Advocate

Facts: boys dropped paraffin lamp into an unattended manhole and it caught fire

LP: enough that the accident was caused by known source of danger (paraffin lamps)

Did not matter that the manner in the way the loss occurred would be foreseeable.

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council
Facts: Abandoned rotting bond fell on boys while they were working on it

LP: foreseeable that injuries such as bruises or even fractures may be sustained but claimant suffered severe crushing injuries which left him disabled

Did not matter what type of injury as precise nature of injury need not be enforceable

Question 6

how do you define the extent of losses (thin skull rule)?

Answer 6

• only necessary that D has foreseen the initial kind of injury (physical injury). D must take victim as he is [Smith v Leech Brain]

Facts: splash of molten metal on the lip resulted in cancer. [both lip injury and cancer is a form of personal injury]

UNDER PAGE V SMITH
if any form of personal injury is foreseeable, then any type of personal injury will be recoverable ( same applies for psychiatric injury)

Psychiatric injury is Brice v Brown

Facts: C was involved in Car accident caused by D’s negligence and suffered severe mental illness as a result

HELD: not remote - enough that it would be reasonably foreseeable that a psychiatric illness would develop