Remoteness Flashcards
1
Q
Wagon Mound No 1
A
- Ship had discharged oil negligently into Sydney Harbour.
- Freak set of events - wielding work nearby, spark from machinery hit water, breach discharging oil on water.
- Not foreseeable that oil could cause fire damage because not foreseeable that fire could be started.
2
Q
Tremain v Pike
A
Facts?
- C contracted Weil’s disease whilst employed by D farmer.
- Incidence of disease on farm rare and no evidence that farming community knew such disease existed or that person might contract it from handling things contaminated with rats’ urine.
Principle?
- Adopted narrow approach.
- Type of damage that need be foreseeable was disease contracted through contact with rats’ urine (as opposed to injury caused by rats - broader, for e.g.).
3
Q
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
A
Facts?
- C suffered frostbite due to D’s negligence.
- D argued frostbite was not reasonably foreseeable (rare in UK).
Principle?
- Judge held type of loss that need be foreseeable was just cold-related injury.
- D could foresee this. Liable.
4
Q
Page v Smith
A
- Established what type of harm had to be foreseeable in case of nervous shock.
- Personal injury treated as single indivisible type of harm. Only had to ask if D can reasonably foresee personal injury risk, whether physical or mental.
5
Q
Corr v IBC
A
Facts?
- Suicide after depression caused by accident.
Principle?
- Foreseeable he would suffer psychological symptoms after the accident.
- Such symptoms led to his death.
- His suicide was an element of the foreseeable injury.
6
Q
Hughes v Lord Advocate
A
Facts?
- Workmen negligently left oil lamps surrounding hole in the road.
- C, 8 y/o, picked one up to explore manhole, knocked or dropped inside, exploded, severe burns.
Principle?
- Cause of accident was known source of danger, damage from burns foreseeable regardless of whether caused by explosion of C knocking and breaking lamp.
- Damage by fire foreseeable so no need to foresee exact way it occurred.
7
Q
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co
A
Facts?
- C injured by chemical reaction which caused explosion.
Principle?
- Opposite to Hughes, no liability because eruption which injured C not foreseeable by reasonable man at time accident happened.
- Damage caused by splashing foreseeable, but not damage caused by eruption.
8
Q
Smith v Leech Brain
A
Facts?
- Onset of pre-existing malignant cancer due to burns caused by D’s negligence.
Principle?
- Thin skull rule. C had pre-disposition towards cancer, but D still liable.
- If D can foresee original injury, he is responsible for anything that flows from that injury even if C suffers to greater extent due to pre-existing condition.
- See also Corr v IBC and Robinson v The Post Office.
9
Q
Lagden v O’Connor
A
Facts?
- Recovery of hire charges by claimant who hired vehicle on credit while waiting for D’s insurers to repair his car.
- C said he could not afford to pay for repairs himself.
D argued that C’s impecuniosity was to blame.
Principle?
- Thin wallet rule.
- Tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds him - this applies as much to his financial as to his physical/mental health.
