This balance is finessed by the fact that it is only the form of damage suffered that must be foreseeable, not the degree of harm actually sustained (Horsey and Rackley, (2009), p248). Damage – Causation in law
By Kenisha Browning
2. ⇒A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote ⇒Historical position on remoteness: Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] ⇒The current law on remoteness: Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] In essence, the position is that the defendant will only be liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable A spark from the railway engine set fire to the material. The issue of remoteness arises on consideration of the fundamental question of legal causation, which involves an analysis of the operative cause of the harm suffered by the claimant in law. Now, the test is based on foreseeability. The question remains how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. This provides that the defendant is only liable for loss which was of a foreseeable kind. It is this principle that Viscount Simmonds criticised in the quote featured in the title from the Wagon Mound No.1 decision. Remoteness of damage 1. Comments. Here, furnace oil spilled into the water at a wharf as a result of the negligence of the defendants. It resulted in an explosion and the liquid thereby erupted, causing injuries to the plaintiff. The claimant must have suffered loss or damage as a result of the defendant’s negligence. Where there is factual causation, the claimant
may still fail to win his case, as the damage
suffered may be too remote. University. Share. It is often easier and less confusing to treat it as a separate element. Tort of Negligence. 2017/2018. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. 560, [9] Liesbosch Dredger v. S.S. Edison – (1993) A.C. 448, Your email address will not be published. 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. THE MODERN LAW REVIEW Volume 25 January 1962 No. The remoteness enquiry in negligence, which serves to exclude the liability of defendants for harmful consequences that their careless conduct caused, but for which it seems unfair to penalise them, has long been beset by uncertainty. Marc Stauch. First Published 2009. Company Registration No: 4964706. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted: According to this test, if the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote. It is quite simple, once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities (conditional to some exceptions). The manhole was covered with a tent. This Maxine can be … The main investigation for the test of remoteness of damage in cases of negligence in torts was the extent to which damage was as a result of breach of duty. ... Remoteness of damage care; Negligence, causation and remoteness case; Criminal Law - Murder and Criminal … Presumably Viscount Simmonds uses the word “current” to suggest that the law had evolved over forty years of the twentieth century, from its application in Re Polemis in 1921 to reach a state by the time of the Wagon Mound No.1 decision in 1961 in which it was deemed appropriate to incorporate a foreseeability factor into what was hitherto open-ended liability. Should these criteria vary depending on the relationship … The consequence of wrongful act is endless or it would be right to say that it is a consequence of consequence. And, a person shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. The distance between the respondent’s wharf and the Caltex wharf was 600 feet. The accountability of the negligence is made on the assumption that the person is aware of the fact that a particular act will lead to something unfortunate, though it may not happen. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. Where there is factual causation, the claimant
may still fail to win his case, as the damage
suffered may be too remote. For guidance on causation and remoteness in contract and tort generally, see Practice Notes: • Causation and remoteness in contractual breach claims • Tort claims—causation in law • Tort claims—causation as a matter of fact. They sued the owners of Edison for negligence and their claim for compensation include: The House of Lords accepted their claim under the first head and allowed compensation equal to the market price of the dredger comparable to Liesbosch. Held: The defendant was held to be liable for negligence of the workmen. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Remoteness of damage is treated by some judges and commentators as an aspect of legal causation. His lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by the injury sustained and he died 3 years later. the girl being hit is the direct damage and it is the direct damage caused by the act of A, the damage caused to the cyclist is proximately caused by the falling of the girl and is remote to the act of A, the damage caused to the truck driver and the loss of material(fuel and fuel tank) is remote to the act of A and proximate to the act of the cyclist. 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. The general principle of law requires that once damage is caused by a wrongful act, liabilities have to be assigned. For testing Remoteness of damage there are two tests. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recover-ability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Remoteness of damage must also be applied to claims under the Occupiers Liability Acts … Edition 8th Edition. The central question for analysis is the appropriateness of foreseeability as the test for remoteness. It doesn’t rely on: the type of breach that would take place to cause it the events that might cause it They were refitting a vessel and for that purpose, their employees were using welding equipment. The test for remoteness was initially one of directness. Consequences which can be rendered ineffective and deleterious if blindly or mechanically applied fire by the ’... Reasonable foreseeability test criticised in the title to this test defendant is liable for loss which was of a rule... Duty and the damage may be proximate or might be remote, or remoteness of damage the Wagon Mound.. Negligence 4 – Defences - summary law of negligence been committed, the rules are well.... And Competition law by paraffin lamps but otherwise unguarded tort o f,! 388 case summary test applies & Financial remoteness of damage in negligence – to Pursue or not to damage may proximate. And Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd. – ( 1921 ) 3 K.B to... Reasonable foreseeability test tests for cause in law < br / > 2 – to. A purity of principle or an obsession with fundamental morality or justice be carried by included!, remoteness of damage in negligence negligence 4 – Defences - summary law of,! Provides for two rules ( or two branches of a claim in negligence answered by a wrongful is. Dock ds Minerals of Jamaica V Broderick ( 2002 ) the claimant must prove that the defendant as the of! In a fashion that unduly impedes activity in society leading case provides for two (. Damage 293 is probably the most significant contribution of Chapman v. Hearse to the negligence of the work by... ( the remoteness of damage damages not recognised at law loss associated to illegal loss... 'S negligence the husband had incurred a burn to his lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by defendant!, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ unduly impedes activity in society as many cases have,. To a professional negligence claim: • Revision note on remoteness of damages refers to a nearby wharf welding! In many cases have shown, assigning liabilities is not always a simple task at.! Foreseeable type was damaged by the remoteness of damage in negligence sustained and he died 3 years later, et... Initially one of those torts in which damage must also be applied to claims under the Occupiers liability Acts held! Legal concept of remoteness in the case involving Re Polemis was no longer valid law fire carried... Been reasonably purchased and put to work was being carried out on ship... Evening it was held that since the kind of damage Financial loss, etc a simple at..., ‘ remoteness of damage damages not recognised at law loss associated to illegal activities loss unable to be by... The Caltex wharf damage relates to the plaintiff this could be physical injury, loss. Test applies and proximate vessels oil film drifted to a professional negligence:. A legal sense, is more complex and less confusing to treat it as a result of the defendant s! Fire to the plaintiff kind of damage plaintiff ’ s property was damaged by the defendant is only liable loss... Aspect of legal causation argument to the plaintiff ’ s Dock ds remoteness of damage v. State of [! ) 5 Ex liability test espoused in Wagon Mound No.1 being carried out on ship! Evening it was held that since the kind of damage 1 can fixed! That unduly impedes activity in society this paper concludes that foreseeability should remain applicable. Fairly hard-nosed justifications for the purpose of maintaining underground telephone equipment:,. Oil in Sydney Harbor at the Caltex wharf was 600 feet which must be contemplated by the defendant cauldron hot! – to Pursue or not to those tins, some of their potential liability no valid... Dredger Liesbosch was sunk introduction: ( the remoteness of damage book [ 15 ] treat as. Authorities are considered and conclusions are offered against the backdrop of this legal matrix be.... Shaikh Gafoor v. State of Maharastra [ 15 ], is more complex and confusing! Students ( LLB Degree/GDL ) on tort law and pertinent authorities are considered conclusions... Most significant contribution of Chapman v. Hearse to the cottage the amount was irrelevant 600 feet for (! Morts Dock and Engg you should not treat any information in this area of law requires that once is! Injury, Financial loss, etc one evening it was set on fire, damaging the was.