Remoteness

Question 1

No need to foresee

Answer 1

• The exact way damage was caused (Hughes v Lord Advocate)
• the extent of the damages (Vacwell Engineering v BDH chemicals)

Question 2

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 2

Defendant must take the victim as they find them

This means the defendant is liable for the full extent of damage, even if the victim’s condition exacerbates the injury.

Question 3

In which case was the thin skull rule applied, indicating that the defendant is liable for aggravated injuries?

Answer 3

Smith v Leech Brain [1962]

This case illustrates that the defendant’s liability extends to unforeseen injuries that arise from the victim’s pre-existing condition.

Question 4

Does the thin skull rule apply to victims in poverty?

Answer 4

Yes

This was established in Lagden v O’Connor [2004], where the victim’s financial status did not limit the defendant’s liability.

Question 5

Test for remoteness

Answer 5

Was the type of damage reasonably foreseeable at the time the defendant breached their duty of care (Wagon Mound no 1) - objective test

Question 6

Type of damage

Answer 6

courts have varied approach but prevailing attitude seems to be the broad approach (Page v Smith)