Remoteness


 * __Reasonable Foreseeability__**
 * TEST –** Was the kind of damage suffered by the P reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the Ds negligence (or kind of carelessness) by a reasonably person in Ds position?
 * D cannot be liable for any consequences of her negligence, which are too ‘remote’: **//Wagon Mound No. 1//**.
 * Even if it is unlikely that damage would be caused to P, if there is a real risk as opposed to ‘far-fetched’ or ‘fanciful’ the damage is not too remote: **//Wagon Mound No. 2.//**


 * à What must be foreseeable?**
 * It is not necessary that the precise harm suffered be reasonably foreseeable, as long as it is of the same kind: **//Mount Isa Mines v Pusey//**.
 * It is not necessary that the specific way in which the harm occurred was reasonably foreseeable: **//Hughes v Lord Advocate//**.
 * Broad Approach – all types of mental illness are the same, all injuries by fire are the same: **//Hughes v Lord Advocate; Mt Isa Mines//**.
 * Narrow Approach – rare diseases and chemical reactions are not foreseeable: **//Tremain v Pike; Doughty v Turner//**.


 * à Types of damage**
 * Property damage caused by fire: **//Wagon Mound cases//**
 * Personal injury caused by fire: **//Hughes//**
 * Mental disturbances: **//Mount Isa Mines//**
 * Personal injury caused by a particular disease: **//Tremain v Pike//**
 * Personal injury caused by a certain kind of eruption: **//Doughty//**


 * __Thin Skull Rule__**
 * Even if a P is particularly vulnerable, the D will be liable for all of the harm causes – but the vulnerability of the P may mean that there is no duty owed in the first place.

__Applies when P has a pre-existing susceptibility:__
 * If a P has a pre-existing susceptibility it will not affect remoteness, as long as the harm was reasonably foreseeable: **//Smith v Leech Brain Co//**.
 * It is unclear whether the injury the P ends up with has to be the same kind as that foreseen.

__Applies when Ds negligence creates a subsequent susceptibility__
 * If the Ds act makes the P susceptible to further injury, and the P suffers injury as a result, the D may be liable, even if the latter harm was not foreseeable at the time of the original injury: **//Stevenson v Waite Tileman//**.
 * e.g. P is cut as a result of Ds negligence, cut becomes infected, which causes brain damage.


 * Back to Torts B**
 * Next Defences**
 * Previous: Causation**