Tort Law - Remoteness Flashcards
How do we work out whether damage was too “remote” in tort law?
Consider: type of harm? way in which the harm was caused?
- Was the damage reasonably foreseeable?
If no, - Was damage of the SAME TYPE foreseeable? [can be construed narrowly or broadly]
If no, this harm is too remote. In the Wagon Mound, pollution damage was foreseeable but fire damage was not.
If yes to 1 or 2, the Claimant can recover, EVEN IF:
A. The precise way in which the damage occurred was not foreseeable (Hughes v Lord Advocate).
B. The full extent of the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, even if aggravated by C’s own weakness (Smith v Leech Brain).
Is psychiatric harm harm too remote to be considered in negligence claims?
No, the case law considers “personal injury”, which can include physical or psychiatric harm (Page v Smith).
Do you need to foresee the exact way in which harm was suffered in order to succeed in a claim?
No, the EXACT/PRECISE way in which the damage occurred does NOT need to be foreseeable.
(Hughes v Lord Advocate): The damage was not too remote it was foreseeable that the boys may suffer a burn from the lamp. The fact that the burn resulted from an unforeseeable explosion did not prevent the type of damage being foreseeable.
Do you need to foresee the full extent of harm suffered in order to succeed in a claim?
No, the EXTENT of damage does not need to be foreseen, only the TYPE of damage.
(Vacwell Engineering Co v BDH Chemicals Ltd): It was irrelevant to claim that the extent of the property damage was unforeseeable (one scientist died and the building’s roof was taken off in the explosion). It was sufficient that the type of damage (explosion; property damage) was foreseeable, therefore D must be held liable for all damage.
Does the thin skull rule apply in tort law?
What if the thin skull rule is aggravated / made worse by the C’s lack of money?
Yes, the thin skull rule applies (Smith v Leech Brain). (In this case, the man’s lip was burned and turned deadly via cancer).
If C’s harm is made worse by C’s lack of money / resources, the thin skull rule STILL applies (Lagden v O’Connor).
(In this case, C hired a care “on credit” and therefore it was reasonably foreseeable that he would need to borrow money or have insufficient funds to mitigate his own damages).
