remoteness

Question 1

Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921)

Answer 1

Facts: Negligent dropping of plank caused unforeseeable spark and fire — liable.
Principle: Old test of directness; once some damage foreseeable, D liable for all direct consequences.

Question 2

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock (Wagon Mound No 1) (1961)

Answer 2

Facts: Oil spill ignited causing fire damage — no liability.
Principle: Damage must be reasonably foreseeable; overruled Re Polemis.

Question 3

Tremain v Pike (1969)

Answer 3

Facts: Farm worker contracted Weil’s disease from rats — no liability.
Principle: Narrow view of foreseeability; precise type of harm not foreseeable.

Question 4

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing (1964)

Answer 4

Facts: Lid fell into molten metal causing eruption — no liability.
Principle: Narrow foreseeability; type of damage not foreseeable.

Question 5

Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)

Answer 5

Facts: Lorry driver suffered frostbite due to broken heater — liable.
Principle: Generous approach; injury foreseeable even if unlikely in UK climate.

Question 6

Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

Answer 6

Facts: Child injured when lamp exploded after falling into manhole — liable.
Principle: Need not foresee precise manner or extent of damage, only type.

Question 7

Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1962)

Answer 7

Facts: Burn triggered cancer due to pre-existing condition — liable.
Principle: Eggshell skull rule; no need to foresee extent of damage.

Question 8

Brice v Brown (1984)

Answer 8

Facts: Minor accident caused severe psychiatric harm — liable.
Principle: Eggshell skull extends to mental vulnerability; extent need not be foreseeable.