Remoteness

Question 1

Wagon Mound No 1

Answer 1

• Ship had discharged oil negligently into Sydney Harbour.
• Freak set of events - wielding work nearby, spark from machinery hit water, breach discharging oil on water.
• Not foreseeable that oil could cause fire damage because not foreseeable that fire could be started.

Question 2

Tremain v Pike

Answer 2

Facts?

• C contracted Weil’s disease whilst employed by D farmer.
• Incidence of disease on farm rare and no evidence that farming community knew such disease existed or that person might contract it from handling things contaminated with rats’ urine.

Principle?

• Adopted narrow approach.
• Type of damage that need be foreseeable was disease contracted through contact with rats’ urine (as opposed to injury caused by rats - broader, for e.g.).

Question 3

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

Answer 3

Facts?

• C suffered frostbite due to D’s negligence.
• D argued frostbite was not reasonably foreseeable (rare in UK).

Principle?

• Judge held type of loss that need be foreseeable was just cold-related injury.
• D could foresee this. Liable.

Question 4

Page v Smith

Answer 4

• Established what type of harm had to be foreseeable in case of nervous shock.
• Personal injury treated as single indivisible type of harm. Only had to ask if D can reasonably foresee personal injury risk, whether physical or mental.

Question 5

Corr v IBC

Answer 5

Facts?
- Suicide after depression caused by accident.

Principle?

• Foreseeable he would suffer psychological symptoms after the accident.
• Such symptoms led to his death.
• His suicide was an element of the foreseeable injury.

Question 6

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Answer 6

Facts?

• Workmen negligently left oil lamps surrounding hole in the road.
• C, 8 y/o, picked one up to explore manhole, knocked or dropped inside, exploded, severe burns.

Principle?

• Cause of accident was known source of danger, damage from burns foreseeable regardless of whether caused by explosion of C knocking and breaking lamp.
• Damage by fire foreseeable so no need to foresee exact way it occurred.

Question 7

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co

Answer 7

Facts?
- C injured by chemical reaction which caused explosion.

Principle?

• Opposite to Hughes, no liability because eruption which injured C not foreseeable by reasonable man at time accident happened.
• Damage caused by splashing foreseeable, but not damage caused by eruption.

Question 8

Smith v Leech Brain

Answer 8

Facts?
- Onset of pre-existing malignant cancer due to burns caused by D’s negligence.

Principle?

• Thin skull rule. C had pre-disposition towards cancer, but D still liable.
• If D can foresee original injury, he is responsible for anything that flows from that injury even if C suffers to greater extent due to pre-existing condition.
• See also Corr v IBC and Robinson v The Post Office.

Question 9

Lagden v O’Connor

Answer 9

Facts?
- Recovery of hire charges by claimant who hired vehicle on credit while waiting for D’s insurers to repair his car.
- C said he could not afford to pay for repairs himself.
D argued that C’s impecuniosity was to blame.

Principle?

• Thin wallet rule.
• Tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds him - this applies as much to his financial as to his physical/mental health.