100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Lees online óf als PDF Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten
logo-home
Eerder door jou gezocht
Eerder door jou gezocht
logo
Tort Law - Remoteness Summary $9.54
In winkelwagen
Snel navigeren naar
Voorbeeld
  2.  
  3. Oxford University (OX)
  4.  
  5. Tort Law

Samenvatting

Tort Law - Remoteness Summary
 0 keer verkocht
  • Vak
  • Tort Law
  • Instelling
  • Oxford University (OX)

Comprehensive summary/exam notes on the principle of remoteness in Tort Law. This document sets out the key cases on remoteness in general negligence claims, in psychiatric harm cases, and on the question of scope of duty (SAAMCO and Khan v Meadows).

Voorbeeld 1 van de 3  pagina's

Document informatie

  • 7 oktober 2024
  • 3
  • 2022/2023
  • Samenvatting

Onderwerpen

  • tort law
  • remoteness
  • negligence

Geschreven voor

  • Oxford University (OX)
  • Onbekend
  • Tort Law
Alle documenten voor dit vak (13)

Verkoper

avatar-seller
bethjscott5713

Ontvangen beoordelingen

Voorbeeld van de inhoud

Remoteness
The Wagon Mound (No.1) –
D’s vessel leaked furnace oil at a wharf. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and
sparks from some wielding works ignited the oil. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction
of some boats and the wharf.
The essential factor in determining liability for the consequences of a tortious act of
negligence is whether the damage is of such a kind as the reasonable man should
have foreseen.
As duty and breach are both based on the foresight of damage, it was only
fair that remoteness was based on the same principle.

This principle is rarely used to limit liability in cases of physical injury caused by negligence.

Smith v Leech Brain –
The plaintiff suffered a burn to his lip as a result of the defendant’s negligence. Because of a
pre-malignant condition, the burn resulted in the plaintiff contracting cancer, from which he
died.
Held that The Wagon Mound did not affect the longstanding “egg-shell skull” rule.
A tortfeasor must take his victim as he found him, and the test of D’s liability
in respect of the death was not whether they could reasonably have foreseen
that a burn would cause cancer and death, but whether they could reasonably
foresee the type of injury suffered, namely, the burn.
Since the cancer was merely an extension of the burn, which they should
reasonably have anticipated, Ds were liable in damages.

The courts might choose to limit the impact of the foreseeability requirement by adopting a broad
definition of the type or kind of damage.

Hughes v Lord Advocate –
The entrance to a manhole was not adequately secured – it was covered with a tent and in the
evening was left unguarded but surrounded by warning paraffin lamps. An 8-year-old boy
entered the tent and knocked or lowered one of the lamps into the hole. An explosion occurred
causing him to fall into the hole and be severely burned.
Rejected the argument that the damage was too remote because although damage by
paraffin burn had been foreseeable damage, by explosion had not.
Lord Reid – “[t]his accident was caused by a known source of danger, but
caused in a way which could not have been foreseen, and in my judgement
that affords no defence.”
Lord Guest –
“In order to establish a coherent chain of causation it is not necessary that the
precise details leading up to the accident should have been reasonably
foreseeable: it is sufficient if the accident which occurred is of a type which
should have been foreseen by a reasonably careful person.”
“…the precise concatenation of circumstances need not be
envisaged.”
Lord Pearce –
“…to demand too great precision in the test of foreseeability would be unfair
to the pursuer since the facets of misadventure are innumerable.”

Jolley v Sutton LBC –
The claimant, a 14-year-old boy, and his friend were trying to repair a derelict boat that had
been abandoned on the defendant’s land when the jack which they were using to prop up the
boat gave way and the boat collapsed on the claimant.

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper bethjscott5713. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor $9.54. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 65040 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Begin nu gratis

Laatst bekeken door jou

Tentamen (uitwerkingen) ·

(0)

BIOS 256 AP 4 Lecture Notes

Samenvatting ·

(0)

Samenvatting AFP KTF1

Overig ·

(0)

finance and accounting recap

Tentamen (uitwerkingen) ·

(0)

EDT 304R ASSIGNMENT 2

Samenvatting ·

(0)

Relatievermogensrecht

Samenvatting ·

(1)

Samenvatting beweging

Overig ·

(0)

Efficiency Essay Plan

Overig ·

(0)

ENG1515 Assignment 02

College aantekeningen ·

(0)

Lecture Notes - Psychotherapy

$9.54
  • (0)
In winkelwagen
Toegevoegd