Remoteness-(1) Consent

Question 1

type of damage reasonably foreseeable

Answer 1

The Wagon Mound No.1

Question 2

broad approach: cold-related injuries from driving with window open inc. frostbite = foreseeable

Answer 2

Bradford v Robinson

Question 3

narrow approach: injury from rat-bite = foreseeable + injury from contact with rat urine ≠ foreseeable

Answer 3

Tremain v Pike

Question 4

psychiatric injury from road accident = foreseeable (H: personal injury inc. physical + mental) + s31

Answer 4

Page v Smith

Question 5

court more likely to approach a broader approach

Answer 5

Limitation Act 1980

Question 6

No need to foresee exact way damage occurs: 8yr old throwing lamp in manhole = burns foreseeable but the event wasn’t

Answer 6

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Question 7

No need to foresee the extent of the damage: small explosion foreseeable = doesn’t matter that it was a big explosion

Answer 7

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals

Question 8

‘Thin Skull rule’ = no need to foresee the extent of damage even if the damage/extent has been aggravated by the claimant’s own weakness: negligence burn provoked pre-existing cancer

Answer 8

Smith v Leech Brain

Question 9

‘Thin Wallet’ rule = no need to foresee the extent of damage even if the damage/extent has been aggravated by the claimant’s own financial situation : Foreseeable that claimant had to use credit to hire car

Answer 9

Lagden v O’Connor

Question 10

1. Had the capacity to give valid consent to the risks of negligence:
   Claimant did not have the capacity to consent to the risk associated with suicide for the Metropolis

Answer 10

Reeves v Comissioner

Question 11

2. Had full knowledge of the nature/extent of the risks: this is a subjective test of what the claimant knew Drunk claimant took a lift from drunk pilot held he wasn’t so drunk to know the nature/extent of the risks

Answer 11

Morris v Murray

Question 12

3. Agreed to the risk of injury: At the end of the day the deceased defendant got drunk but the claimant remained in the car + court held she couldn’t extricate herself from car

Answer 12

Dann v Hamilton

Question 13

sports (ice hockey puck for the first one)

Answer 13

Murray v Harringay, Poppleton v Trustees of Portsmouth Youth Activities
Committee

Question 14

4. Agreed voluntarily: hit with a rock from crane at work, knew of risk + hard to establish agreed voluntarily for employees as they do not have choice not lose job

Answer 14

Smith v Charles Baker & Sons

Question 15

employee tested explosive without using shelter provided - this was voluntary

Answer 15

ICI v Shatwell, Bowater v Rowley Regis

Question 16

In rescue situations, there is no voluntary agreement as they act on ‘impulsive desire’

Answer 16

Baker v Hopkins