Remoteness

Question 1

What is the test used in remoteness?

Answer 1

• objective test
• what was reasonably foreseeable
  (The Wagon Mound (No 1))

Question 2

Why is remoteness important to establish?

Answer 2

The damage must not be tooremotefrom the defendant’s breach.

Question 3

Does the same kind or type of harm needed to be foreseeable?

Answer 3

Yes

• The claimant can only recover if the defendant ought to have foreseen the ‘kind’ or ‘type’ of damage suffered by the claimant.
• If the claimant suffers a different kind of harm, it will not be recoverable.

Question 4

Do we need to foresee the exact way the damage occurs?

Answer 4

No
- Once it has been established that the kind or type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, there is no need for it also to be reasonable for the defendant to foresee the exact circumstances leading up to the damage (Hughes v Lord Advocate)

Question 5

Do we need to foresee the extent of damage that occurs?

Answer 5

No
- Once the claimant suffers damage of the same kind or type as that which is reasonably foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent of those damages, even if the extent is greater than that which would normally be expected. (Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals)

Question 6

Does the rule on extent of damage apply if the damage has been aggravated by the claimants own weakness?

Answer 6

Yes

- thin skill rule

Question 7

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 7

• the defendant must take their victim as they find them
• the defendant will be liable for anything that flows from the damage, even if the claimant suffers to a greater extent because of a pre-existing condition (Smith v Leech Brain)

Question 8

Does the thin skull rule apply the claimants own impecuniosity (lack of monetary funds)?

Answer 8

Yes

- Lagden v O’Connor