- 1、本文档共4页,可阅读全部内容。
- 2、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
- 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载。
- 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
查看更多
Remoteness of Damage
What extent of the damage is D liable for?
Limit in law to D’s liability ( remoteness.
PREV: Direct Consequences Test:
Prior to Donoghue v Stevenson.
Asked: was damage claimed a “direct consequence” of D’s act?
Eg. Re Polemis Furness, Withy Co: ship destroyed by fire whilst unloading at port. Neg stevedore dislodge timber plank on deck, which fell into open hold where it hit an object and caused a spark. Ignited fuel vapour that escaped from cargo of drums in hold. Held: D liable for all damage to ship as direct consequence of stevedore’s act which D was vicariously liable for.
However, was criticised as Re Polemis test and Donoghue v Stevenson neighbour rule would make potential liability too wide.
Overruled in Wagon Mound No 1.
NOW: Reasonable Foreseeability Test:
D will not be liable for damage which was not reasonably foreseeable consequence of D’s negligence.
The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961): P (owners of wharf) sued D (charterers of ship Wagon Mound), who neg spilled fuel oil into water, which ignited causing severe fire damage to bay. The “flash point” of oil was extremely high, and would not have been foreseeable. Oil must have caught fire from molten metal from welding carried on P’s wharf.
Trial judge, and 1st appeal: D liable, for though fire was unforeseeable, bound by Re Polemis.
PC appeal: D won. Established above rule and overturned Re Polemis.
The Wagon Mound (No 2) (1967): owners of two ships, which were moored in the wharf and damaged by fire. Ps won.
Reasonably foreseeable defined as - “A real risk…would occur to the mind of the reasonable man…which he would not brush aside as far fetched” (per Reid LJ)
Meaning of RF in remoteness should be same as breach of duty.
Kind of Damage:
How specific should the KIND of damage be foreseeable?
Hughes v Lord Advocate (HoL) 1963: employees of PO left deep manhole open in street. Put canvas tent and kerosene lamps to warn. P (8yo) and friend tied a lamp to rope and lowered themselves to exp
您可能关注的文档
- PROTOSM5培训教材.doc
- ps中文教程word.doc
- ps入门教程三.doc
- ps入门教程二2.doc
- ps快捷键大全(表格汇总共4页).doc
- ps快捷键大全表格汇总共4页.doc
- PS教程——关于PS蒙板非常基础的东西.ppt
- PubMed2011使用指南.ppt
- pvc管买卖合同1.doc
- q3210自动上下料说明方案.doc
- 江苏省灌云高级中学2023-2024学年高三上学期第一次月考地理试题含答案.docx
- 备战2024年高考物理一轮重难点复习 第十三章 近代物理.docx
- 江苏省高邮市一中2021-2022学年高三上学期第一次月考语文试题(原卷版).docx
- 江苏省华罗庚中学2023-2024学年高三上学期12月阶段检测数学试卷含答案.docx
- 江苏省海门中学2023-2024学年高三上学期第一次调研考试地理试题及答案.docx
- 备战2024年高考物理一轮重难点复习 第九章 恒定电流.docx
- 江苏省高邮市2023-2024学年高三下学期3月学情调研数学试题含答案.docx
- 备战2024年高考物理一轮重难点复习 实验十一:探究影响感应电流方向的因素.docx
- 备战2024年高考物理一轮重难点复习 实验三:验证平行四边形定则.docx
- 备战2024年高考物理一轮重难点复习 第十四章 光.docx
文档评论(0)