Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law Second Year > Tort Law - Remoteness > Flashcards

Tort Law - Remoteness Flashcards

1
Q

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

A

Scope of duty of car

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Wagon Mound (No.1) general

A

Oil, fire, wharf

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Oil, fire, wharf

A

Wagon Mound (No.1)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Wagon Mound (No.1) judgment

A

Damage needs to be reasonably foreseeable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Re Pollemis judgment

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What case did the court depart from in Wagon Mound?

A

Re Pollemis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Wagon Mound on ‘kinds of harm’ reasonably foreseeable

A

Damage by FIRE, not just by oil fouling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

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

A

Inconsistent with ‘justice or morality’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What two tests did they align in Wagon Mound?

A

Compensation and liability tests - both reasonably foreseeable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Re Pollemis general

A

Rope, boards, spark

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Fleming on Wagon Mound

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

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

A

Fleming

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Smith v Leech Brain general

A

Burned lip, cancer triggered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Burned lip, cancer triggered

A

Smith v Leech Brain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Smith v Leech Brain judgment

A

Damage recoverable - wide view on type/kind of injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

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

A

Smith v Leech Brain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

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

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Langden v O’Connor general

A

Financial vulnerability, car hire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Financial vulnerability, car hire

A

Langden v O’Connor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Langden v O’Connor judgment

A

Recoverable because C impecunious

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

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

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

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

A

Lord Nicholls

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Hughes v Lord Advocate general

A

Manhole, child, paraffin lamp

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Manhole, child, paraffin lamp

A

Hughes v Lord Advocate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Hughes v Lord Advocate judgment

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

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

A

Hughes v Lord Advocate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing general

A

Asbestos lid, burning P

28
Q

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing judgment

A

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

29
Q

Asbestos lid, burning P

A

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing

30
Q

AG v Hartwell

A

Nicholls doubted Doughty would commend to modern courts

31
Q

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

A

Lord Nicholls in AG v Hartwell

32
Q

Jolley v Sutton LBC general

A

Wooden boat, repair

33
Q

Jolley v Sutton LBC judgment

A

Only GENUS of damage need be foreseen, not species

34
Q

Wooden boat, repair

A

Jolley v Sutton LBC

35
Q

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

A

Jolley v Sutton LBC

36
Q

Foster v Maguire

A

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

37
Q

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?

A

Sir Anthony Evans in Foster v Maguire

38
Q

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

A

Sir Anthony Evans

39
Q

Spencer v Wincanton general

A

Amputee, petrol

40
Q

Spencer v Wincanton on remoteness

A

Within categories of remoteness as simply one kind of falling

41
Q

Why was there no NA in Spencer v Wincanton?

A

Inconvenience of using prosthetic

42
Q

Page v Smith general

A

ME, turning

43
Q

Page v Smith judgment

A

Physical and psychiatric injury one type/kind of damage

44
Q

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

A

Page v Smith

45
Q

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

A

‘Personal injury’ included physical and psychiatric injury

46
Q

What case showed an abandonment of ‘type of harm’ approach?

A

Page v Smith

47
Q

Bailey and Nolan on Page

A

Its ‘long term prospects… look slim’

48
Q

L&O on Page

A

Difficult to see RF role in remoteness if still good law

49
Q

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

A

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

50
Q

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?

A

Lord Hoffmann in Jolley v Sutton LBC

51
Q

Bradford v Robinson Rentals general

A

Frostbite, windows open

52
Q

Bradford v Robinson Rentals judgment

A

Injury foreseeable due to breach

53
Q

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals general

A

Glass ampoules, water and explosion

54
Q

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals judgment

A

Small explosion foreseeable, so all damage even though extent unforeseeable

55
Q

What case is inconsistent with Doughty?

A

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals

56
Q

Harris, Campbell and Halson on RT

A

Two RF tests for liability and remoteness are different

57
Q

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

A

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

58
Q

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

A

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

59
Q

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

A

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

60
Q

Bourhill v Young general

A

P not foreseeable V of motorcyclist negligence

61
Q

Bourhill v Young judgment

A

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

62
Q

What is the unforeseeable C rule?

A

Deciding from circumstances if C was inside zone of risk

63
Q

South Australia v Asset Management general

A

Negligently overprice, crash in property

64
Q

South Australia v Asset Management judgment

A

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

65
Q

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

A

South Australia v Asset Management

66
Q

Negligently overprice, crash in property

A

South Australia v Asset Management

Law Second Year (62 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions