The ground on which this case has been decided against the appellant is that the accident was of an unforeseeable type. The damage was not too remote it was foreseeable that the boys may suffer a burn from the lamp. Morts Dock and Engg.
The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. The damage was not too remote it was foreseeable that the boys may suffer a burn from the lamp. A child of eight years entered the tent and started playing with one of the lamps.
He gave instructions accordingly but directed that all safety precautions should be taken to prevent inflammable material falling into the oil. The boys had jacked the boat up to work on the underside and the jack went through the rotten wood.
Remoteness of damage is often viewed as an additional mechanism of controlling tortious liability. Since a reasonable man could not foresee the damage caused, the appellants were held not liable, even though the negligence of the servants was the direct cause of the injury.
Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. The council was liable for the damage caused by the broken water main, but the land owner is responsible for keeping trespassers at bay. Provided some kind of personal injury was foreseeable it did not matter whether the injury was physical or psychiatric.
The exact cause of the fire is unknown, but the most probable explanation which the Court accepted was that underneath the wharf was floating a piece of debris with some smoldering cotton waste or rag on it.
The court held that the secondary damage caused by the squatters was too remote. Whilst it may be foreseeable the lid may have caused a splash resulting in a scold, it was not foreseeable that an explosion would occur resulting in burns.
This is based on the presumed knowledge of the defendant - what was reasonably foreseeable. The council never took it away. Unfortunately, the boat fell on one of the boys, seriously injuring him.
The fact that the burn resulted from an unforeseeable explosion did not prevent the type of damage being foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate  AC Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company  1 QB There has been some confusion as to whether for remoteness of damage, in addition to being damage of a type which is foreseeable, the damage must occur in a foreseeable manner.
The manhole was covered with a tent. He was successful at his trial and awarded. The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability Act Although the injuries were not actually sustained in a foreseeable way, the injuries that actually materialised fell within the predictable range.
Tests for cause in law encompass a remoteness test which involves establishing whether the damage that occurred was foreseeable to the defendant at the time of the negligence. Ie if the victim is particularly vulnerable or has a pre-existing condition resulting in them suffering greater injury than would be expected in an ordinary person, the defendant remains responsible for the full extent of the injury: To demand more of him is too harsh a rule, to demand less is to ignore that civilised order requires the observance of a minimum standard of behaviour.
The escaped oil was carried by wind and tide beneath a wharf owned by the respondents, who were ship-builders and ship-repairers. However, a defendant will be liable for extraordinary losses if it had particular or specific knowledge that these losses are likely to occur in the case of a breach.
The explosion occurred as a result of the asbestos reacting with the chemicals in the liquid in the high temperature. The reason why a new dredger could not be purchased by the plaintiffs was their poverty and the House considered the additional loss being due to the extraneous cause of poverty and as such too remote.
And the description is formulated by reference to the nature of the risk that ought to have been foreseen. These issues were discussed in Victoria Laundry Windsor Ltd v Newman Industries Ltdwhich distinguished between ordinary and extraordinary losses mentioned in the ruling of Hadley v Blaxendale : Foreseeability[ edit ] However, in The Wagon Mound No 1  a large quantity of oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour from the Wagon Mound and it drifted under the wharf where the claimants were oxyacetylene welding.
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that whilst it was foreseeable that younger children may play on the boat and suffer an injury by falling through the rotten wood, it was not foreseeable that older boys would try to do the boat up. Remoteness operates to "limit the recovery of damages to those losses and damage which in a tort case were reasonably foreseeable and which in a contract case were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties.
The question remains how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. House of Lords held: The cause of this accident was a known source of danger, the lamp, but it behaved in an unpredictable way The Wagon Mound no 1  AC Following the Wagon Mound no 1 the test for remoteness of damage is that damage must be of a kind which was foreseeable.
Lords Steyn and Hoffman stated that it is not necessary to foresee the precise injury that occurred, but injury of a given description.
Remoteness of damage relates to the requirement that the damage must be of a foreseeable type. In negligence claims, once the claimant has established that the defendant owes them a duty of care and is in breach of that duty which has caused damage, they.
Psychiatric damage giving rise to physical consequences or a recognized psychiatric illness caused by a sudden and unexpected traumatic event.
For "Remoteness of vesting" see instead Rule against perpetuities. In English law, remoteness is a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limits the amount of compensatory damages for a wrong. Remoteness limits the ability of a plaintiff to recover damages to only those which are reasonably foreseeable to the parties.
A plaintiff can only recover damages if the loss suffered was not 'remote'. Damages will not be considered remote if the loss was: A loss arising naturally, reasonably foreseeable to anyone.
In English law, remoteness is a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limits the amount of compensatory damages for a wrong. In negligence, the test of causation not only requires that the defendant was the cause in fact, but also requires that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant was not too remote.
Tests for cause in law encompass a remoteness test (which involves establishing whether the damage that occurred was foreseeable to the defendant at the time of the negligence).
It is the type of harm that must be foreseeable, not its extent.Remoteness of damages