Remoteness of Damage Flashcards
What is the test used to determine remoteness of damage in negligence?
A) The “but for” test
B) The reasonable foreseeability test
C) The strict liability test
D) The balance of probabilities test
B) The reasonable foreseeability test
In which case was the reasonable foreseeability test established?
A) Donoghue v Stevenson
B) The Wagon Mound (No.1)
C) Caparo v Dickman
D) Bolam v Friern
B) The Wagon Mound (No.1)
Which of the following best describes the “thin skull” rule?
A) A defendant is not liable if the claimant had a pre-existing condition
B) A defendant is only liable for foreseeable damage
C) A defendant must take the claimant as they find them
D) A defendant can argue that the extent of harm was unforeseeable
C) A defendant must take the claimant as they find them
Which of the following cases established that the extent of damage does not need to be foreseeable?
A) Bradford v Robinson Rentals
B) Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals
C) Hughes v Lord Advocate
D) Tremain v Pike
B) Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals
In Lagden v O’Connor, what did the court decide regarding financial vulnerability?
A) Financial vulnerability does not impact damages
B) A defendant is only liable for expected losses
C) The thin skull rule applies to financial vulnerability
D) The claimant was responsible for mitigating losses
C) The thin skull rule applies to financial vulnerability
Mark leaves a glass bottle on a pavement, which is negligently knocked over by Tom. A shard cuts Sarah’s foot, and she develops an extremely rare infection leading to amputation. Is Mark liable for the amputation?
A) No, because the infection was not foreseeable
B) Yes, because the type of harm (injury from broken glass) was foreseeable
C) No, because Sarah had a rare condition making her more vulnerable
D) Yes, because all consequences of negligence are recoverable
B) Yes, because the type of harm (injury from broken glass) was foreseeable
A farmer’s employee contracts a disease from rat urine on the farm. The employer was aware of the presence of rats but not of the risk of disease from urine. Would the employer be liable?
A) Yes, because any harm from rats was foreseeable
B) No, because Weil’s disease was too remote
C) Yes, because the employer should have foreseen all rat-related harm
D) No, because the employee was negligent in handling the rats
B) No, because Weil’s disease was too remote (Tremain v Pike)
A hotel negligently fails to provide fire extinguishers. A small fire starts, but due to the absence of extinguishers, it spreads and destroys the hotel. Can the hotel recover damages?
A) No, because the fire started small
B) Yes, because fire damage was foreseeable
C) No, because the specific way the fire spread was unforeseeable
D) Yes, because the hotel was insured
B) Yes, because fire damage was foreseeable (Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals)
In which of the following cases did the court take a broad approach to the type of foreseeable harm?
A) The Wagon Mound (No.1)
B) Tremain v Pike
C) Bradford v Robinson Rentals
D) Wilsher v Essex
C) Bradford v Robinson Rentals
A construction worker negligently spills flammable liquid. Two days later, a spark from a welder ignites the liquid, causing an explosion. Will the worker be liable?
A) Yes, because the explosion was foreseeable
B) No, because the time delay makes the explosion too remote
C) No, because welding is an intervening act
D) Yes, but only if the welder was also negligent
A) Yes, because the explosion was foreseeable (Hughes v Lord Advocate)
A doctor negligently fails to warn a patient of a 1% risk of paralysis from surgery. The patient suffers paralysis after the operation. Is the doctor liable?
A) No, because the risk was small
B) Yes, because the patient had the right to be warned
C) No, because paralysis could have occurred anyway
D) Yes, because the doctor was grossly negligent
B) Yes, because the patient had the right to be warned (Chester v Afshar)
A car mechanic negligently installs faulty brakes in a car. The owner drives the car for six months without issue until one day, the brakes fail and cause an accident. Is the mechanic liable?
A) No, because the accident happened six months later
B) Yes, because the type of harm (brake failure causing an accident) was foreseeable
C) No, because the driver should have checked the brakes
D) Yes, because all consequences of negligence are recoverable
B) Yes, because the type of harm (brake failure causing an accident) was foreseeable
A factory negligently disposes of toxic chemicals into a river. Months later, fishermen fall ill due to water contamination. Is the factory liable?
A) No, because too much time has passed
B) Yes, because the type of harm (illness from toxins) was foreseeable
C) No, because the fishermen should have tested the water
D) Yes, but only for the first cases of illness
B) Yes, because the type of harm (illness from toxins) was foreseeable
A cyclist is hit by a reckless driver and suffers a minor knee injury. Due to a rare blood condition, the injury leads to severe complications requiring amputation. Is the driver liable for the amputation?
A) No, because the severity was unforeseeable
B) Yes, because the thin skull rule applies
C) No, because the cyclist should have received treatment sooner
D) Yes, but only for the initial knee injury
B) Yes, because the thin skull rule applies (Smith v Leech Brain)
A restaurant negligently serves undercooked chicken to a customer, causing mild food poisoning. While recovering at home, the customer trips due to weakness from the illness, hitting their head and suffering a severe brain injury. Is the restaurant liable for the brain injury?
A) No, because tripping at home was an unforeseeable consequence
B) Yes, because the thin skull rule applies to all injuries
C) No, because the restaurant could only foresee food poisoning
D) Yes, because all consequences of negligence are recoverable
C) No, because the restaurant could only foresee food poisoning
🔹 Why? The type of harm that must be foreseeable is food poisoning, not tripping at home. The brain injury is too remote because it was not directly linked to the restaurant’s negligence in a foreseeable way.
🔹 Exception? If the customer had a pre-existing condition making them more susceptible to falling, the thin skull rule might apply, but only if the trip was a direct and expected consequence of food poisoning.
