Remoteness Flashcards
What happened and was held in Re Polemis?
They were unloading cargo and a plank negligently dropped into a hd and spark ignited gases, the exploding destroyed the ship. If the act is negligent all damage that is direct consequence of the act is recoverable.
What happened the wagon mound (No.1) (1961)?
A large quantity of fuel oil discharges from ship into Sydney Harbour. The oil carried by wind/tide to plaintiffs wharf. 2 days later the lil caught fire damaging wharf and ships.
What was held in the wagon mound?
The claimant must show that the damage was not too remote from the negligence of the defendant. The risk of fire could not have been foreseen. It was too remote from the negligent act of spilling the oil. If the oil itself was damage to the wharf then that would have been foreseeable but the fire was not. The court stated that re polemis should no longer be regarded as good law.
What happened in Hughes v Lord Advocate?
D, the post office employed workmen who left a manhole covered by a small Kent with a. Lamp at the corners. C was the two boys who tripled and dropped the petition kn to the lamp which caused a burning.
What was held in Hughes v Lord Advocate?
The rule states that if the Tyrone of injury is foreseeable then the way ut happens is irrelevant. The accident was caused by a known source of danger and that made it foreseeable even though the way in which it happened was unexpected.
What happened in Smith v Leach Brain?
D, the employers of a workman who was slightly splashed by molten metal, through negligence and suffered a burn on his face. The burn aggravated a preexisting cancerous condition and the man died.
What was held in Smith v Leach Brain?
The thin skull rule - the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. If the damage is more serious because of the victim such as a thing skull he defendant is still liabile. As a burn was reasonably foreseeable the defendant was also liable for his death. C won.
What happened in Corr v IBC Vehicles(2008)?
C seriously injured in near-fatal work accident suffered ongoing physical and psychological problems.
What was held in Corr v IBC Vehicles 2008?
Depression was clearly foreseeable. Suicide was an effect of that depression. Despite the fact that it could neither be described as reasonable or foreseeable, the suicide did not break the chain of causation. - no intervening act.
What happened and held in knightley v Johns 1982?
Ds negligent driving caused blocking of a busy road tunnel. Inspector sent a police constable to drive back against the traffic flow to close the tunnel entrance. P injured D not liable. Inspectors negligent behaviour was the of Ps injuries.
