Also the fact that an ordinary person would not have suffered the injury incurred by the claimant was irrelevant as the defendant must take his victim as he finds him under the thin skull rule. Eastern National Omnibus Co. The plaintiff was employed by the defendants. Jolley v Sutton  1 WLR Two 14 year old boys found an abandoned boat on land owned by the council and decided to do it up.
Thus, they are based on the presumed knowledge of the defendant.
The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, i.
The boat was in a thoroughly rotten condition and represented a danger. The damage was not too remote it was foreseeable that the boys Remoteness of damages suffer a burn from the lamp.
And, a person shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i. His act was the proximate cause of damage even though his act was farthest from the damage in so far as the acts X and Y had intervened in between.
An event constituting a wrong can constitute of single consequence or may constitute of consequences of consequences i. The fact that the burn resulted from an unforeseeable explosion did not prevent the type of damage being foreseeable. Cases and Materials Lawbook Co, 11th ed,pp. The child was burned.
It was not foreseeable that an explosion would occur. As regards the second head of claim, the compensation allowed was for loss suffered in carrying out the contract with the third party from the date of the sinking of Liesbosch to the date when another dredger could reasonably have been put to work.
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.
One of them dropped the lamp and an unforeseeable explosion occurred resulting in extensive burns. The test is whether the damage is of a kind that was foreseeable. London and South Western Railway Co.
Remoteness of damage must also be applied to claims under the Occupiers Liability Acts and also to nuisance claims. For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQsand if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.
If you wish to help us, please click here. Remoteness of damage is often viewed as an additional mechanism of controlling tortious liability.
Lord Denning said at p that remoteness of damages is just a question of policy with the element of foreseeability being determined by what is perceived to be instinctively just. The damage was not too remote it was foreseeable that the boys may suffer a burn from the lamp.
The court held that the secondary damage caused by the squatters was too remote. Although the injuries were not actually sustained in a foreseeable way, the injuries that actually materialised fell within the predictable range.
The trial judge found for the claimant. Hughes v Lord Advocate suggests not but see: And the description is formulated by reference to the nature of the risk that ought to have been foreseen.
Please subscribe or login to access full text content.
It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. An unusual loss one not within reasonable foreseeability will be considered remote unlessthe defendant had knowledge which would enable him to foresee it. House of Lords held: Some other workmen of the defendants let an asbestos cement coverslip into a cauldron of hot molten liquid.
Through the carelessness of their servants, a large quantity of oil was allowed to spill into the harbor. The Wagon Mound test was considered and applied in: Although the injuries were not actually sustained in a foreseeable way, the injuries that actually materialised fell within the predictable range.
The doctrine of the remoteness of damages is one such principle. Not every loss will be recoverable in tort law. Of course, the pursuer has to prove that the defender's fault caused the accident and there could be a case where the intrusion of a new and unexpected factor could be regarded as the cause of the accident rather than the fault of the defender.
The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. The council had stuck a notice on the boat warning not to touch the boat and that if the owner did not claim the boat within 7 days it would be taken away.
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 must also demonstrate that the damage was not too remote.
remoteness of damage 1 in contract law, the concept that protects the contract-breaker from having to pay for all the consequences of his breach. Since one of the principal aims of the law of contract is certainty, the rules are well settled.
The leading case provides for two rules (or two branches of a single rule). Alderson, B., stated the law as. Psychiatric damage giving rise to physical consequences or a recognized psychiatric illness caused by a sudden and unexpected traumatic event.
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. 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 of damages