Remoteness of Damages

Question 1

Why have it?

Answer 1

Although the defender may be liable they can’t be held to be liable for all potential losses that occur, as some may just be too remote. Victim losses can vary over time, shouldn’t have to pay for all losses. Only comes into play once liability is settled.

Question 2

Allan v Barclay

Answer 2

None can be claimed for except that which arise directly and naturally out of the delictual liability claim. It means they must also be foreseeable

Question 3

re Polemis

Answer 3

Harm wasn’t reasonably foreseeable, spark from a plank of wood

Question 4

Wagon Mound

Answer 4

It’s the foreseeability that matters, rather than direct consequence

Question 5

Scottish Situation - McKillen v Barclay Curle & Co Ltd

Answer 5

Liable for all damages that arise naturally and directly due to the negligence. Egg shell skull rule.
Wagon Mound was rejected by Scottish Courts

Question 6

Simmonds v British Steel plc

Answer 6

Side with Wagon Mound on this issue

Question 7

Remoteness summarised

Answer 7

1) Victim sustained harm which is due to delictual liability
2) It was reasonably foreseeable
3) Personal Injuries take victim as they find him