This lesson introduces remoteness as a limit on damages and explains the historical directness approach in tort. It matters because proving that a defendant caused harm does not always mean that the defendant must compensate for every consequence.
In negligence, a claimant generally must establish that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused loss. The causation inquiry includes both cause in fact and the question whether the loss is too remote to be recoverable.
All flashcards
What is remoteness in negligence?
A legal limit on recovering loss that was factually caused by a wrong but is considered too distant under the applicable test.
What did the traditional directness approach ask?
Whether damage followed directly from the breach, rather than whether its type was reasonably foreseeable.
What rule did *The Wagon Mound (No 1)* establish for negligence?
Damage must be reasonably foreseeable to be recoverable; the precise sequence of events need not have been predicted.
What is the egg-shell skull rule?
A defendant takes the claimant as found and may be liable for unusually severe injury if injury of the relevant kind was foreseeable.
What are the two routes to recovery under *Hadley v Baxendale*?
Loss arising in the usual course of things, or loss within the parties’ contemplation because relevant special circumstances were known.
Quiz questions
For remoteness in negligence, which aspect of harm generally must be reasonably foreseeable?Answer: The kind or description of harm
In *Hughes v Lord Advocate*, a child was burned after a paraffin lamp fell into an uncovered manhole and an explosion followed. Why was the injury recoverable?Answer: Injury from the known danger fell within a foreseeable range, although the explosion was unexpected.
A defendant’s negligence causes a foreseeable kind of personal injury, but the claimant’s unusual vulnerability makes the injury much more severe. What does the egg-shell skull rule generally require?Answer: The defendant may be liable for the full severity of the injury.
What does *novus actus interveniens* describe in tort law?Answer: A new intervening act treated as breaking the causal chain
When assessing a claim for loss after late redelivery of a ship, what issue did the House of Lords consider in *The Achilleas*?Answer: Whether the loss fell within the responsibility the defendant had assumed