Remoteness

Question 1

central concern

Answer 1

concerned with the extent of liability - recoverable loss - claimants can recover compensation for reasonably foreseeable loss

Question 2

rationale for remoteness doctrine

Answer 2

Balancing C’s security regarding reasonably foreseeable harm and D’s freedom of action
C not imposing disproportionate burdens on D

Question 3

reasonable foreseeability test -leading auth

Answer 3

Wagon Mound (No1) - D employees carelessly spilled oil into Sydney Harbour - floats to C’s dock where building work involving welding is occuring - work = temp stopped and C’s manager assured no risk - work recommences and molten metal drops into water - fire occurs damaging dock and 2 ships - does C bare responsibility?

privy council - No for C harm not foreseeable

Question 4

harm of a reasonably foreseeable type

Answer 4

Hughes v Lord Advocate:
workmen working for D lifted manhole cover and set paraffin lamps beside it - then went for a break - young boy accompanied by friend picked up a lamp and went into tunnel beneath open cover - came back up but tripped over lamp he carried which fell into manhole - explosion and fire - boy burnt - D tried to arg liability only imposed where this precise set of circ was reasonably foreseeable and on their view it was not - rejected by HOLs - concluded that many types of harm and this was reasonably foreseeable

The precise sequence of events does not need to be reasonably foreseeable

Question 5

egg shell skull principle

Answer 5

you must take your victim as you find them

Think in terms of two arguments:
Argument no 1: harm is of a reasonably foreseeable type (Hughes v Lord Advocate). Where this is accepted, move on to –
Argument no 2: C has an eggshell skull (or other congenital weakness) and D is, hence, liable for unforeseeable loss(es).

Applies very limited - when claimant has particular vulnerability - may make it possible to claim compensation which goes beyond threshold of reasonably foreseeablility

Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405. - V at work and worked with metal, should have had shield which protects from harm - not protected (reasonably foreseeable harm) splashed with metal - triggered underlying suspectability to cancer - not reasonably foreseeable - claimant (estate) argues ESSP - principle is applicable as underlying vulnerability

Sayers v Perrin: electric shock triggers (unforeseeable) polio; D held liable. - carelessly administered electric shock which triggered polio (not foreseeable) - D held liable for polio under ESSP

Question 6

Corr V IBC Vehicles Ltd

Answer 6

Corr narrowly escaped decapitation and left disfigured at work - developed PTSD and depression - 6 years later = suicide

D resp for suicide? - reasonably foreseeable said CoA
HoLs dismissed D’s appeal - D arg that Corrs suicide was not reasonably foreseeable and a NAI - breaking causal chain - rejected