RemotenessofDamage：.doc

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