This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

GDL Law Notes GDL Tort Law Notes

Remoteness Notes

Updated Remoteness Notes

GDL Tort Law Notes

GDL Tort Law

Approximately 591 pages

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Remoteness

  • Rogers: ‘any student who expects a scientific analysis of … [“remoteness”] will be grievously disappointed’.

  • Novus Actus Interveniens of a Third Party

    • Lamb v Camden LBC [1981] – Council negligently fractured pipe under C’s flat. This caused extensive damage and the property had to be vacated. A year later squatter moved in and caused more damage.

      • Held LA not liable for damage caused by squatters. This was a NAI.

      • Denning: As a matter of policy was the responsibility of the owner of the house to ensure it was secure while unoccupied and insure it against damage.

      • Watkins LJ: Judges should take robust approach, if they have a instinct that the damage is too remote they should listen to that instinct.

    • Knightly v Johns [1982] – John’s negligent driving caused car to overturn in tunnel. Senior officer negligently instructed two officers on motorcycles to drive on wrong side of road to the other end of the tunnel and close it off. One of the officers was involved in a crash and died.

      • Held the Senior Officer’s negligence was a NAI. Claimant was entitled to full damages from the senior officer

      • CA: An act is more likely to break the chain than an omission

      • Negligent conduct is more likely to break the chain than non-negligent conduct.

    • Scott v Shepherd (1773) – D1 threw a squib (lit firework) into market place. Two others threw it on/away from themselves before it landed near C. D2 and D3 not laible as acting in heat of the moment.

      • Actions in the heat of the moment do not break the chain.

    • Robinson v Post Office (1974) – Slipped on ladder. Taken to hospital and given tetnus jab. Developed brain damage. Thin skull rule applied and original defendant guilty.

      • Medical treatment msut be palpably wrong to break the chain.

  • Novus Actus Interveniens of Claimant

    • McKew v Holland (1969) – Scotland – C strained his back and hips and his leg was prone to giving way without any warning after an accident at work. Attempted to walk down steps without daughters help. Felt leg give way and jumped to the bottom. Permanently disabled.

      • Held C’s actions were unreasonable and therefore amounted to a NAI.

    • Wieland v Cyril [1969] – claimant injured in road accident. Given neck brace. Sought son’s help to get her home safely. Son leaved nearby. Fell down stairs at Son’s office as could not see due to neck brace.

      • Court of Appeal held that the claimant behaved reasonably by seeking the help of an adult therefore did not break the chain of causation.

    • Clay v TUI UK [2018] – Clay and family stuck on balcony due to defective lock. Claimant tried to climb to neighbouring balcony, fell and fractured skull. Held actions were sufficiently unreasonable to break chain of causation.

      • Moylan LJ dissented arguing it was reasonably foreseeable that Mr Clay might sustain injury as a result of being trapped on the balcony and attempting to escape.

    • Spencer v Wincanton [2009] – D’s negligence resulted in minor injury to Claimant’s leg. Over the course of three years the leg got worse and eventually the claimant required amputation.

      • After amputation claimant was in a hurry, drove to a self-service petrol station. Got out of car without prosthetic or walking stick. Tripped over a man hole cover and was seriously injured and ended up paralysed, confined to a wheelchair.

      • CA held there was no break in chain of causation – no unreasonable conduct and defendants were liable for injury, amputation and paralysis (reduced on contributory negligence)

      • Sedley LJ: “a succession of consequences which in fact and in logic is infinite will be halted by the law when it becomes unfair to let it continue.”

    • Emeh v Kensington & Chelsea AHA [1984] – elected to sterilise herself after three children. This failed, but D did not want an abortion but financial compensation. Held failure to abort was a NAI.

    • Reeves v MPC [1999] - Martin Lynch committed suicide whilst in a police cell. Have attempted to do so before that day and Dr having warned of suicide risk.

      • HoL held suicide does not generally breack chain of causarion. The act of suicide was the very thing that the police were under a duty to prevent to treat this as a novus actus interveniens would deprive the duty of any substance.

  • Novus Actus Interveniens of Claimant where Tort interferes with mental stability

    • Meah v McCreamer [1985] – C was a non-violent criminal. D crashed car negligently injuring C’s head. C violently attacked...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Tort Law Notes.

More GDL Tort Law Samples