Remoteness

• Remoteness of damage


  In order to show legal causation, it must be shown that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant was not too remote
• Tests for establishing remoteness

  1. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921]

  2. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or (Wagon Mound) (No. 1) [1961]
• Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921]


  • Defendants were liable for all damage resulting from the negligence regardless of whether the type of damage was foreseeable or not
  • What mattered was that provided some damage was foreseeable, liability was owed for all direct consequences that could be directly traced to the negligent act or omission
• Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or (Wagon Mound) (No. 1) [1961]


  • The correct test for remoteness is reasonable foreseeability of the type of damage caused
• The decisions in Re Polemis and Wagon Mound (No 1)


  Conflict with one another
• The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Wagon Mound (No 1) made it clear that they regarded the decision in Re Polemis as bad law
• The precedent in Re Polemis has not yet been overruled
• In practice today, all courts follow the test for remoteness established in Wagon Mound (No 1)
• A claimant must show that the type of damage caused by the defendant's act or omission was reasonably foreseeable
• Citation


  Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] can be abbreviated to Re Polemis

  Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or (Wagon Mound) (No. 1) [1961] can be abbreviated to Wagon Mound (No 1)
• Remoteness in psychiatric injury cases

  Foreseeability of injury is important
• The 'egg-shell' rule


  Also known as the 'thin skull rule' or 'take your victim as you find him'

  If the type of injury is foreseeable but because of some pre-existing condition on the part of the defendant the extent of the injury is worse than would have usually been expected, the claimant is still liable for the full extent of the injury
• Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962]

  • Due to his employer's negligence, the claimant was splashed with molten metal on the lip, which caused cancer from which he died

  The claimant had a predisposition to the cancer in his skin tissue

  The employer was liable for the claimant's death, as although the death might not have been foreseeable, an injury was, and it was irrelevant that the claimant had the predisposition to cancer