Chapter 2: Negligence - Remoteness

4. Remoteness of damage – legal causation

-The claimant must prove that damage was not too remote from the defendant’s breach.
Test for remoteness:
 Direct consequence test
Defendant liable for any damage which is result of his negligence.
Re Polemis (1921)
Charterer loaded tins of petrol and plank fell into hold causing spark. The petrol ignited and ship
completely burnt. The court held charterer liable for any consequence that was a direct result of
their breach of duty even if the consequences was not foreseeable.
 Reasonable Foreseeability Test
Defendant is liable for damage which was reasonably foreseeable at the time when defendant
breached his duty.
The Wagon Mound No.1 (1961)
The oil leaked to neighbouring wharf owned by X due to employee’s negligence. It caused
damage to X’s slipway. The oil spread into a thin film on the surface and it was ignited by sparks
from welding operation few days later. The court created new test for remoteness and held the
defendant was only liable for damage to the slipway and not liable for the fire damage due to it
was too remote thus not reasonably foreseeable.
*If follow Re Polemis, the defendant will be held liable. However, the test used today is
reasonably foreseeability test.
Reasonable Foreseeability Test
3 Elements:
 Type of harm
Personal Injury
-General harm foreseeable was sufficient.
Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)
The claimant suffered frostbite when sent on a long journey during severe winter weather by the
employer. The defendant held it was too remote and unforeseeable to have this type of damage in
England. The court held it was foreseeable that some cold related illness will be suffered and it is
immaterial to foresee the actual damage was frostbite, and the defendant was held liable.
Margereson v JW Roberts Ltd (1996)
The court held the owner of an asbestos works should have been aware of the dangers of people
inhaling the asbestos dust. Since the defendant can foresee the danger of inhaling asbestos that is
sufficient, there is no need to foresee mesothelioma.
Property damage
-Specific harm must have been foresee.
The Wagon Mound (No.1) (1961)
The defendant could not be liable for the fire damage since the correct test for remoteness was
reasonable foreseeability and because of the improbability of the oil igniting, the fire damage was
unforeseeable. They only can foresee environmental pollution.
 Means in which it occurs
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd (1964)
An asbestos lid was accidentally knocked into a pot of molten liquid. A few moments later an
explosion occurred and the claimant who standing close was suffered. The explosion occurred as
a result of the asbestos reacting with the chemicals in the liquid in the high temperature which
was not known it could react in this way. The court held the damage was too remote as it was not
foreseeable that an explosion would occur even it may be foreseeable the lid may have caused a
splash.
Hughes v The Lord Advocate (1963)
Post Office employees working in a hole in the road negligently left a manhole uncovered inside
a tent and left the tent unattended. As a safety precaution the workmen left four lit paraffin lamps
at the corner of the tent at night. A boy entered the tent with a lamp and when he fell into the
hole, there was an explosion and he was burnt. The court held the defendants liable since some
fire related damage was foreseeable, it does not matter the burns were produced in a way that was
not foreseeable.
Jolley v London Borough of Sutton (2003)
A council failed to move an abandoned boat for two years. It was well known that children played
in the boat and it was a clear danger. Two boy jacked up the boat and repair but they were
injured. The court held the activities done by boy was not foreseeable but the risk was
foreseeable. The precise manner in which the injuries was occurred was not important. The
council was liable for negligence.
Tremain v Pike (1969)
The claimant was a herdsman who contracted well’s disease during the course of his work and
this is a rare disease. It contracted through contact with rat’s urine. The court accepted that the
defendant had negligently allowed the rat population on his farm to grow too large and there was
some inevitable risk of damage from rate. However, the court held the defendant was not liable
due to it was a rare disease thus unforeseeable.
 The extent of harm
Egg shell-skull rule
-Take your victim as you find him
-Eg. If the victim is particularly vulnerable or has a pre-existing condition resulting in them
suffering greater injury than would be expected in an ordinary person, the defendant remains
responsible for the full extent of the injury.
Smith v Leech Brain (1962)
A widow brought a claim on behalf of her dead husband against the employer who negligently
caused her husband suffered a burn to his lip. The lip contained ore-cancerous cells which were
triggered by the injury sustained and died three years later from cancer. The court held the burn
was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence and it resulted death therefore
defendant was liable. The egg shell skull rule applies as the defendant must take his victim as he
finds him.
Liesbosch Dredger v SS Edison (1933)
The defendant negligently sank the claimant’s ship. The claimant had to hire another vessel to do
the work stated in contract. It is cheaper if they buy a new one but the claimant could not afford
it. The claimant claimed for cost of new ship and expenses of hiring the one. The House of Lords
refused to compensate them for the cost of the hired ship on the basis that the loss was caused by
their own financial circumstances.
Lagden v O’Connor (2003)
The House of Lords now confirmed that the ‘egg shell skull rule’ now applies to economic
weakness. The claimant was involved in a car accident due to negligence of defendant and he
needed a replacement car while his own was being repaired. The claimant was unemployed and
could not afford to hire a car or loan. His only option was to replace his car through credit hire
which was more expensive. House of Lord held the defendant had to take claimant as they found
them, including financial situation. This case was distinguished from Liesbosch Dredger v SS
Edison (1933) which decided at the time when direct consequences test was used, and today the
test has been changed to reasonably foreseeability test.