100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Tort Law - Remoteness Summary £7.16   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Oxford University (OX)
  4.  
  5. Tort Law

Summary

Tort Law - Remoteness Summary
 1 view  0 purchase

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).

Preview 1 out of 3  pages

Document information

  • October 7, 2024
  • 3
  • 2022/2023
  • Summary

Subjects

Written for

All documents for this subject (13)

Seller

avatar-seller
bethjscott5713

Content preview

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.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bethjscott5713. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £7.16. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

78834 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling
£7.16
  • (0)
  Add to cart