REMOTENESS FOR DofC

Question 1

What is remoteness?

Answer 1

The legal test for causation

Question 2

In remoteness what are the 3 ways a chain of causation can be broken?

Answer 2

1. Actions of a third party
2. External events (freak incidents) -> CARSLOGIE STEAMSHIP 1952 = freak storm
3. C themselves -> LAW REFROM (contributory negligence) ACT 1945

Question 3

How did DORSET YACHT 1970 define an intervening act?

Answer 3

‘Anything less than very likely’ - LORD REID

Question 4

Why was the test in DORSET YACHT 1970 considered to be weak?

Answer 4

Pointed about by LORD DENNING in LAMB 1985
- Made the chain of causation very hard to break as there are a lot things that are very likely to happen in any given instance

Question 5

Case facts LAMB v CAMDEN LBC 1985

Answer 5

• D was negligent in regards to some waterworks near a property meaning it couldn’t be inhabited for over a year
• In that time squatters moved in and C tried to bring an action against the council for the squatters destroying the house
• HELD: it was C’s responsibility to secure the house, and should’ve had it insured. OLIVER LJ held an intervening act to be what the reasonable person ‘would foresee if they actually thought about it’ -> squatters in an unsecured house

Question 6

What did OLIVER LJ define an intervening act as in LAMB 1985

Answer 6

Something the reasonable man would foresee if they actually thought about it
Camden was notorious for squatters at the time and leaving the house unsecured and squatters getting in was not the councils fault = not liable

Question 7

Can the actions of rescuers break the chain of causation?

Answer 7

No -> THE OROPESA 1943

Yes if the action is completely unreasonable -> KNIGHTLY v JOHNS 1982

Question 8

Case facts THE OROPESIA 1943

Answer 8

• Captain of a ship made a rescue attempt to a ship that had negligently crashed into his
• Lifeboat sank and he and several of his crew died = didn’t break chain of causation as it was perfectly reasonable actions for a captain to take
• Original ship crashing was still liable for harm suffered

Question 9

Case facts KNIGHTLY v JOHNS 1982

Answer 9

• D had negligently overturned their car in a tunnel and police needed to close the tunnel to deal with the incident
• C was a policeman who drove down the wrong side of the road to close tunnel and hit another car causing serious injury
• HELD: could not possibly be D’s fault, C had broken the chain of causation by acting so foolishly

Question 10

Is an act by the claimant a complete or partial defence?

Answer 10

Can be either -> MCKEW v HOLLAND 1969

Question 11

Case fact PIGNEY 1957

Answer 11

• To be held liable for their own harm C must have acted negligently
• C is held to the objective standard of the reasonable person

Question 12

Which case held there must be factual (but for) and legal (remoteness) causation for C to be liable for their own harm?

Answer 12

JONES v LIVOX 1952

Question 13

To what extent must damage be reasonably foreseeable?

Answer 13

D can only be liable for the KINDS of damage that are reasonably foreseeable

Question 14

Which case held that D is only liable for the kinds of harm reasonably foreseeable?

Answer 14

THE WAGON MOUND 1961

Question 15

Why is THE WAGON MOUND 1961 a bit controversial?

Answer 15

The phrase ‘kinds of damage’ can be widely interpreted

Question 16

Which case establishes the eggshell skull rule in tort?

Answer 16

SMITH v LEECHBRAIN 1962

Question 17

Case facts SMITH v LEECHBRAIN 1962

Answer 17

• C was burnt by a piece of metal due to D’s negligence
• Caused a rare reaction that meant C got cancer
• D was still liable as they are both considered the same ‘kind’ of harm -> physical, as set out in THE WAGON MOUND 1961
• Also the principle of take your victim as you find them - no intervening act

Question 18

Why is the test for negligent damage to property more strict than negligent damage to a person?

Answer 18

Courts value human safety higher than that of property

Question 19

Case facts THE LIESBOCH 1933

Answer 19

• Appears to be an exception to rule in LEECHBRAIN 1962
• Accident severely damaged a boat and C was unable to repair it due to lack of funds
• Had to rent a different boat which turned out to be more expensive in the long run -> tried to claim this amount
• HELD: could only claim amount that was a result of D’s negligence, the fact they were skint was enough to break the chain of causation so D was not liable for further costs incurred

Question 20

Which 2 cases undermine THE LIESBOCH 1933?

Answer 20

BODERICK 2002

LAGDEN

Question 21

Case facts LAGDEN

Answer 21

• Car accident and C couldn’t afford repairs due to being unemployed, entered a hire-purchase agreement as it was cheaper in the short-term than repairing the car
• Sued for full amount of hire-purchase car, even though in the long-term it was more expensive than a repair
• HELD: C was entitled to full amount

Question 22

Why then, given facts of LAGDEN has LIESBOCH 1933 not been completely overruled?

Answer 22

There are still circumstances where LIESBOCH could apply:

• If C failed to mitigate their losses in a reasonable way
• By recklessly spending over the amount their losses were worth, C would not be entitled to claiming back entire expense as it is C’s duty not to overspend while mitigating their losses

Question 23

Test for remoteness of PEL

Answer 23

DofC to provide information, if that info forms basis of another persons actions; D is negligently liable only for foreseeable consequences

Question 24

Which case established test for DofC regarding information given?

Answer 24

SAAMACO 1999

Question 25

Case facts SAAMACO 1999

Answer 25

• D provided the bank (C) with info on the value of a property, due to their own negligence they grossly undervalued the property
• Bank lost a lot of money due to this negligent misinformation -> courts agreed they should be compensated
• BUT bank tried to claim for money that was lost due to a downturn in the market
• HELD: C entitled to money lost due to negligent misinformation by C, but a downturn in the market was not a foreseeable consequence so they could not claim that money back