Remoteness

Question 1

According to the case of Re Polemis how much was the plaintiff able to claim for?

Answer 1

All loss that was a direct result of the defendant’s breach.

Question 2

What has the test in Re Polemis been overruled by?

Answer 2

The test for reasonably foreeseeable damage.

Question 3

Which case established the test for reasonably foreseeable damage?

Answer 3

The Wagon Mound (No 1)

Question 4

Does a specific kind of damage have to be reasonably foreseeable? What about if the damage is PI?

Answer 4

The type of damage suffered. With regard to PI, if any kind of PI is reasonably foreseeable, mental or physical, liability will arise (per Lord Bingham in Corr v IBC Vehicles quoting Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in Simmons v British Steel).

Question 5

Does the way in which the type of damage has occurred have to be reasonably foreseeable?

Answer 5

No (Hughes v Lord Advocate).

Question 6

Does the extent of damage need to be reasonably foreseeable?

Answer 6

No, as soon as the type of damage has been determined as reasonably foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damages even if the plaintiff is particularly susceptible (Smith v Leech Brain).

Question 7

Does the thin skull rule apply to plaintiffs who do not have funds to minimise damages?

Answer 7

Yes (Lagden v O’Connor).

Question 8

Will an intervening event always make damage too remote?

Answer 8

Not always, for instance, if an act happens in the heat of the moment it will not make successive damage too remote (Scott v Shepherd).