remoteness of education to sustain the e

education

1. Remoteness of Damage (Directness v. Foreseeability) After the commission of a tort, the question of defendant’s liability arises. The consequences of a wrongful act (omission) may be endless or there may be consequences of consequences. For instance- A cyclist negligently hits a pedestrian who was carrying a bomb in his pocket. When the pedestrian is knocked down, the bomb explodes. The pedestrian and four other persons going on the road die and twenty other persons are severely injured due to the explosion. A building nearby is engulfed in fire due to the same explosion and some women and children therein are severely injured. The Question is- Can the cyclist be liable for all these consequences???

2. Lord Wright- “The law cannot take account of everything that follows a wrongful act; it regards some subsequent matters as outside the scope of its selection, because it were infinite for the law to judge the causes of causes, or consequences of consequences. Remote and Proximate damage- How and where is such a line to be drawn?? To answer this question we are to see whether the damage is too remote a consequence of the wrongful act or not. If that is too remote, the defendant is not liable. If, on the other hand, the act and consequences are so connected that they are not too remote but are proximate, the defendant will be liable for the consequences.

3. Re. Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) Old Approach – Not Good Law Fact - Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. Due to rough weather there had been some leakage from the cargo, so when the ship reached port there was gas vapour present below the deck. Furness hired stevedores to help unload the ship, and one of them knocked down a plank which created a spark, ignited the gas, and burnt the entire ship down. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. Issue - Is it necessary that the specific type of damage caused be reasonably foreseeable in order for Furness to be liable for damages?

4. Judgement - A negligent actor is liable for all direct results of the negligent act regardless of whether the damage in question was foreseeable, regardless of any compounded seriousness and regardless of the fact that the eventual damage may have been entirely different from that which a reasonable person may have anticipated on the basis of the original state of affairs.

5. Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd, The Wagon Mound No.1 [1961] 1 All ER 404,  Fact: The Plaintiff, Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Plaintiff), operated a dock in the Port of Sydney. The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). Wagon Mound was moored 600 feet from the Plaintiff’s wharf when, due the Defendant’s negligence, she discharged furnace oil into the bay causing minor injury to the Plaintiff’s property. However, the oil was ignited when molten metal dropped from the wharf and came into contact with cotton waste floating on the water’s surface. The fire seriously damaged the wharf and two ships docked there. Issue.  Whether the fire that destroyed the Plaintiff’s wharf was a foreseeable consequence of the Defendant’s negligence.

6. Judgment - The injury to Plaintiff’s property, though a direct result of the defendant’s negligence, was an unforeseeable consequence and liability does not attach. It is this principle that Viscount Simmonds criticised in the quote featured in the title from the Wagon Mound No.1 decision. It is submitted that the Wagon Mound No.1 ruling effectively curtailed the practical range of liability that had previously been established in Re Polemis and that Wagon Mound essentially overruled Re Polemis . This development clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of their potential liability.

7. Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837 Fact: Some Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole to work under the road. They had marked it clearly as dangerous. They took a tea break, and when this happened Hughes, a young boy, went into the manhole to explore. After getting back out, a lamp was either dropped or knocked into the hole and an explosion resulted, causing Hughes to fall back in where he was badly burned. The lower court dismissed the case stating that the actual event that led to the injuries was the explosion, and that it was not foreseeable as it resulted from numerous unlikely events, and Hughes appealed. Issue - Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury?

8. Judgment – Appeal allowed. He was charged. Reid, in a unanimous decision, holds that what is truly of importance is whether the lighting of a fire outside of the manhole was a reasonably foreseeable result of leaving the manhole unwatched, and they determine that it was as the lamps were left there. He focuses on the lamp, and states that the types of injuries that are reasonably foreseeable from lamps are burns, which is exactly what we have here. Therefore, the injury is not different in kind from what should have been expected. As long as you can foresee in a general way the type of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause. As long as the general type of injury can be foreseen, there will be proximate cause.

9. Smith v. Leech Brain & Co. (1961) 3 All ER 1159 Fact: Smith's husband worked in a factory owned by Leech Brain galvanizing steel. He had previously worked in the gas industry, making him prone to cancer. One day at work he came out from behind his protective shield when working and was struck in the lip by molten metal. The burn was treated, but he eventually developed cancer and died three years later. The protection provided to employees during their work was very shoddy. Issues: Which test applies –  Polemis  or  Wagon Mound ? Does the man’s special sensitivity matter?

10. Judgment - Parker does not think that the decision in  Wagon Mound  is relevant to this case. He states that the "thin skull" rule differentiates the two cases, and that this is a case of "taking your plaintiffs as they come" rather than insufficient proximity. Therefore, as it is found that the burn was a negligent action on the part of Leech Brain as they did not provide ample safety, and it at least partially led to the develo pment of the cancer, the defendants are liable. Ratio - The ruling in  Wagon Mound  does not apply to cases where the outcome was unforeseeable to a particular plaintiff because of a condition that he or she had; rather it is used in situations when the foreseeable connection between the action and the outcome is unreasonable. For actions in tort, you take a plaintiff as he or she comes - the fact that they have a condition that led to more damages than normal is not a factor in determining damages (the "thin skull" rule).