They are considered remote and a defendant will not be liable for them. Once damage is of a kind that is foreseeable the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage no matter whether the extent of the damage is foreseeable. The trial as well as the Supreme Court followed the Polemis rule and held the defendant liable, with the reason that any reasonable man could form the chain of events deduce that the negligence of the defendant was the direct cause for the fire.
Once damage is of a kind that is foreseeable the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage no matter whether the extent of the damage is foreseeable. The council accepted that it had been negligent in not removing the boat but that it had not been foreseeable that two boys would try to jack up the boat and so move it from the cradle upon which it lay.
Remoteness of damage must also be applied to claims under the Occupiers Liability Acts and also to nuisance claims. Thus, floating oil was set a fire and the wharf was severely damaged. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. It was held that since the kind of damage was foreseeable although the extent was not, the defendants were liable.
There was no requirement that the damage was foreseeable. The damage was too remote. Extraordinary losses are losses which do not arise naturally and thus are not reasonably foreseeable. Remoteness was also discussed in Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp: Hewitt and Greenland v.
The court held that the secondary damage caused by the squatters was too remote. In the case of actual knowledge by the defendant of the special circumstances, he will be liable for extraordinary losses.
Law Remoteness of damage relates to the requirement that the damage must be of a foreseeable type. Thus, the claim after the time when a new dredger could have been reasonably purchased and put to work was rejected.
The claimant's case was that the boat represented a trap or allurement. Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. To mitigate some of the potential unfairness of the rule, the courts have been inclined to take a relatively liberal view of whether damage is of a foreseeable type.
The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Cases and Materials Lawbook Co, 11th ed,pp.
He was successful at his trial and awarded. Access to the complete content on Law Trove requires a subscription or purchase. The claimant was standing close by and suffered burns from the explosion. And then in the case of Overseas Tankship U. The former alleged that damage by burning was not damage of a description that could reasonably have been foreseen, while the latter asserted that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable.
Thus, the Wagon Mound No. Of course, the pursuer has to prove that the defender's fault caused the accident and there could be a case where the intrusion of a new and unexpected factor could be regarded as the cause of the accident rather than the fault of the defender. It was not foreseeable that an explosion would occur.
Wagon Mound Case the test of directness was rejected by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and it was held that the test of reasonable foresight is the better test. The manhole was covered with a tent.
The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. It is quite simple, once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities (conditional to some exceptions).
The question remains how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The doctrine of the remoteness of damages is one such principle. Psychiatric damage giving rise to physical consequences or a recognized psychiatric illness caused by a sudden and unexpected traumatic event.
A test of remoteness of damage was substituted for the direct consequence test. The test is whether the damage is of a kind that was foreseeable. If a foreseeable type of damage is present, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage, no matter whether the extent of damage was foreseeable.
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 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.
Tests for cause in law encompass a remoteness test (which involves establishing whether the damage that occurred was foreseeable to the defendant at the time of the negligence). It is the type of harm that must be foreseeable, not its extent.Remoteness of damages