Remoteness Flashcards
Wagon Mound (No 1)
Claimant must prove that their loss would have been foreseeable by a reasonable man in the defendant’s position at the time of the breach
Bradford v Robinson
Claimant suffered frostbite due to employer’s negligence in maintaining vehicle - unusual injury - only had to foresee injury from the cold
Tremain v Pike
Claimant contracted disease through contact with rat urine - since it was not known how the disease spread, it was not foreseeable
Simmons v British Steel
Where some personal injury is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for all personal injury, both physical and psychiatric
Vacwell Engineering v BDH
Claimant suffered extensive damage from chemical explosion resulting from defendant’s negligence - liable for full extent of damage
Smith v Leech Brain
Claimant worked with chemicals which splashed onto his lip due to employers’ negligence - exacerbated pre-existing condition and died of cancer - since the burn was foreseeable, the entire extent of the injury was allowed (thin skull rule)
Corr v IBC
Injured due to employers’ negligence, then developed depression and committed suicide - flowed from original injury (only element that had to be reasonably foreseeable) - eggshell personality rule
Page v Smith
Car accident exacerbated pre-existing ME - since some harm was foreseeable, the defendants were liable for all the loss
Lagden v O’Conner
Claimant’s financial situation meant he couldn’t afford to hire a replacement car (mitigate damages) so entered into a hire purchase agreement and incurred additional expenses - full extent of damages were allowed (thin wallet rule)
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Do not have to foresee how the loss was caused, only that the loss could happen
2 children playing knocked over a paraffin lamp which exploded and caused burns (could have happened through direct contact)
