Thus, they are based on the presumed knowledge of the defendant. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark.
Whilst it may be foreseeable the lid may have caused a splash resulting in a scold, it was not foreseeable that an explosion would occur resulting in burns. Provided some kind of personal injury was foreseeable it did not Remoteness of damages whether the injury was physical or psychiatric.
Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The Wagon Mound no 1  AC Following the Wagon Mound no 1 the test for remoteness of damage is that damage must be of a kind which was foreseeable.
The direct consequence test was overruled in the Wagon Mound no 1 and replaced with a new test for deciding if damages are too remote: There was thus no need to establish that psychiatric injury was foreseeable.
One of them dropped the lamp and an unforeseeable explosion occurred resulting in extensive burns. The claimant was not physically injured in the collision but the incident triggered his ME and had become chronic and permanent so that he was unable to return to his job as a teacher.
At the time of the incident it was not known that the asbestos could react in that way. 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.
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 boys took a lamp down the hole. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the wharf and to vessels moored nearby.
The defendant was liable for all the direct consequences of their action. Unfortunately, the boat fell on one of the boys, seriously injuring him. The council allowed an abandoned boat to remain on its land and, over a period of time, two boys began to paint and repair it. 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: It was not foreseeable that an explosion would occur. Hughes v Lord Advocate  AC Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company  1 QB There has been some confusion as to whether for remoteness of damage, in addition to being damage of a type which is foreseeable, the damage must occur in a foreseeable manner.
The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability Act The boys had been working on the boat for weeks when one of them suffered severe spinal injuries, resulting in paraplegia, when the boat fell on top of him.
The ground on which this case has been decided against the appellant is that the accident was of an unforeseeable type. They are not considered remote.
Thus, the Wagon Mound No. Obviously if the defendant did not have knowledge, the unusual loss will be remote and unrecoverable.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.
The personal injury team of Adams & Adams has found itself assessing the principle of remoteness of damages on a consistent basis in the last few months with its increasing personal injury and insurance-based actions. The term remoteness refers to the legal test of causation which is used when determining the types of loss caused by a breach of contract or duty which may be compensated by a.
Remoteness limits the ability of a plaintiff to recover damages to only those which are reasonably foreseeable to the parties. A plaintiff can only recover damages if the loss suffered was not 'remote'.
Damages will not be considered remote if the loss was: A loss arising naturally, reasonably foreseeable to anyone. 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.
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.Download