Tort Law - Remoteness

Question 1

What new concept has been used to limit D’s liability if loss was unusual or unexpected?

Answer 1

Scope of duty of car

Question 2

Wagon Mound (No.1) general

Answer 2

Oil, fire, wharf

Question 3

Oil, fire, wharf

Answer 3

Wagon Mound (No.1)

Question 4

Wagon Mound (No.1) judgment

Answer 4

Damage needs to be reasonably foreseeable

Question 5

Re Pollemis judgment

Answer 5

Made D liable for all loss directly caused by his/her negligence

Question 6

What case did the court depart from in Wagon Mound?

Answer 6

Re Pollemis

Question 7

Wagon Mound on ‘kinds of harm’ reasonably foreseeable

Answer 7

Damage by FIRE, not just by oil fouling

Question 8

What did Viscount Simonds say of Re Pollemis in Wagon Mound?

Answer 8

Inconsistent with ‘justice or morality’

Question 9

What two tests did they align in Wagon Mound?

Answer 9

Compensation and liability tests - both reasonably foreseeable

Question 10

Re Pollemis general

Answer 10

Rope, boards, spark

Question 11

Fleming on Wagon Mound

Answer 11

Can be good reasons for holding D liable for unforeseeable injury - same test need not apply to compensation and liability

Question 12

Who criticised Wagon Mound as can be good reasons for holding D liable for unforeseeable injury?

Answer 12

Fleming

Question 13

Smith v Leech Brain general

Answer 13

Burned lip, cancer triggered

Question 14

Burned lip, cancer triggered

Answer 14

Smith v Leech Brain

Question 15

Smith v Leech Brain judgment

Answer 15

Damage recoverable - wide view on type/kind of injury

Question 16

What case took a wide view on type/kind of injury?

Answer 16

Smith v Leech Brain

Question 17

What are the two ways to interpret Smith v Leech Brain?

Answer 17

Wagon Mound doesn’t apply to ‘thin skull’ cases, or applies but extent of damage irrelevant as long as TYPE foreseeable

Question 18

Langden v O’Connor general

Answer 18

Financial vulnerability, car hire

Question 19

Financial vulnerability, car hire

Answer 19

Langden v O’Connor

Question 20

Langden v O’Connor judgment

Answer 20

Recoverable because C impecunious

Question 21

How did Lord Nicholls described ‘impecunious’ in Langden v O’Connor?

Answer 21

When C would have had to make sacrifices it would be unreasonable to expect him to make

Question 22

What judge in Langden v O’Connor gave a definition of ‘impecunious’?

Answer 22

Lord Nicholls

Question 23

Hughes v Lord Advocate general

Answer 23

Manhole, child, paraffin lamp

Question 24

Manhole, child, paraffin lamp

Answer 24

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Question 25

Hughes v Lord Advocate judgment

Answer 25

Injury caused by known source of danger, and thus unforeseeable manner not a defence

Question 26

What case showed that knowing a source of danger is sufficient, even if manner in which the harm is caused by source is unforeseen?

Answer 26

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Question 27

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing general

Answer 27

Asbestos lid, burning P

Question 28

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing judgment

Answer 28

Burning by splashing foreseeable, but not by lid causing change in chemical composition

Question 29

Asbestos lid, burning P

Answer 29

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing

Question 30

AG v Hartwell

Answer 30

Nicholls doubted Doughty would commend to modern courts

Question 31

What judge and in what case doubted Doughty v Turner Manufacturing would commend to modern courts?

Answer 31

Lord Nicholls in AG v Hartwell

Question 32

Jolley v Sutton LBC general

Answer 32

Wooden boat, repair

Question 33

Jolley v Sutton LBC judgment

Answer 33

Only GENUS of damage need be foreseen, not species

Question 34

Wooden boat, repair

Answer 34

Jolley v Sutton LBC

Question 35

What case suggested only genus of damage need be foreseen, not species?

Answer 35

Jolley v Sutton LBC

Question 36

Foster v Maguire

Answer 36

Broad question in Jolley v Sutton LBC suggests affirmative answer to duty necessarily means damage not too remote

Question 37

What judge in what case highlighted how broad question in Jolley v Sutton LBC suggests affirmative answer to duty necessarily means damage not too remote?

Answer 37

Sir Anthony Evans in Foster v Maguire

Question 38

What judge in Foster v Maguire highlighted how broad q in Jolley suggested yes to duty means damage not too remote?

Answer 38

Sir Anthony Evans

Question 39

Spencer v Wincanton general

Answer 39

Amputee, petrol

Question 40

Spencer v Wincanton on remoteness

Answer 40

Within categories of remoteness as simply one kind of falling

Question 41

Why was there no NA in Spencer v Wincanton?

Answer 41

Inconvenience of using prosthetic

Question 42

Page v Smith general

Answer 42

ME, turning

Question 43

Page v Smith judgment

Answer 43

Physical and psychiatric injury one type/kind of damage

Question 44

What case gave, essentially, a category of 'personal injury' as damage required to be foreseen not to be too remote?

Answer 44

Page v Smith

Question 45

How did Page v Smith give an even wider classification than in Holly?

Answer 45

'Personal injury' included physical and psychiatric injury

Question 46

What case showed an abandonment of 'type of harm' approach?

Answer 46

Page v Smith

Question 47

Bailey and Nolan on Page

Answer 47

Its 'long term prospects... look slim'

Question 48

L&O on Page

Answer 48

Difficult to see RF role in remoteness if still good law

Question 49

Jolley v Sutton LBC, per Lord Hoffmann on Page v Smith

Answer 49

Suggested at least where children are involved, D under duty to take steps to avoid some risks, and would have cost no more to avoid risk that materialised

Question 50

What judge in what cases suggested that, at least where children involved, D should be liable if under duty to avoid risks, and cost of avoiding risk that materialised was no more?

Answer 50

Lord Hoffmann in Jolley v Sutton LBC

Question 51

Bradford v Robinson Rentals general

Answer 51

Frostbite, windows open

Question 52

Bradford v Robinson Rentals judgment

Answer 52

Injury foreseeable due to breach

Question 53

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals general

Answer 53

Glass ampoules, water and explosion

Question 54

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals judgment

Answer 54

Small explosion foreseeable, so all damage even though extent unforeseeable

Question 55

What case is inconsistent with Doughty?

Answer 55

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals

Question 56

Harris, Campbell and Halson on RT

Answer 56

Two RF tests for liability and remoteness are different

Question 57

What do Harris, Campbell and Halson argue is the test for RT in liability?

Answer 57

Look at range of risks D MIGHT create IF negligent as a general question

Question 58

What do Harris, Campbell and Halson argue is the test for RT in remoteness?

Answer 58

Reasonable man has benefit of knowing HOW D acted, which may widen or narrow foresight

Question 59

What are two problems with attributing Harris, Campbell and Halson tests of RF to courts?

Answer 59

Unforeseeable C rule, and what room is there for foreseeability of harm at remoteness if DoC is relative to harm of a particular type

Question 60

Bourhill v Young general

Answer 60

P not foreseeable V of motorcyclist negligence

Question 61

Bourhill v Young judgment

Answer 61

If used Harris, Campbell and Halson approach, hard to see how couldn't have found a risk he would hit her

Question 62

What is the unforeseeable C rule?

Answer 62

Deciding from circumstances if C was inside zone of risk

Question 63

South Australia v Asset Management general

Answer 63

Negligently overprice, crash in property

Question 64

South Australia v Asset Management judgment

Answer 64

D not liable for loss in value attributable to property crash because scope of liability didn't extend that far

Question 65

What case shows courts referring to 'scope of liability' in reference to remoteness?

Answer 65

South Australia v Asset Management

Question 66

Negligently overprice, crash in property

Answer 66

South Australia v Asset Management