Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB tort law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Tort Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest results in ...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Remoteness of Damage
Old Law
Re Polemis
Two interpretations you can take from the decision
First interpretation
That as long as some damage of the relevant kind was reasonably foreseeable
D liable for all damage of that kind.
Giliker: thus Lords only drew distinction between property damage and other kinds of damage (i.e. economic loss, personal injury)
Second interpretation (supported by Authority):
As long as some damage foreseeable from D’s action
D would be liable for all damage that resulted from that
E.g. dropping plank of wood = scratched paint = reasonable foreseeable
So if plank was dropped and set ship on fire owing to unknown petrol vapour leak
Then D liable for all direct results of conduct.
Modern Law
The Wagon Mound (1) – D negligently spilt oil into the water from his ship, which spread out among the harbour. After leaving with no attempt to do anything, some welders on the quay were welding. A spark ignited some cotton waste that was floating in the water, which in turn ignited the oil and caused considerable damage to the equipment and wharf.
Viscount Simonds
If it is asked why a man should be responsible for the natural or necessary or probable consequences of his act (or any other similar description of them)
the answer is that it is not because they are natural or necessary or probable,
but because, since they have this quality, it is judged by the standard of the reasonable man that he ought to have foreseen them
the test for the liability for fire is foreseeability of injury by fire
Principles set out
Need only be foreseeability of the “kind of damage” that eventuates – no need to foresee the exact way the harm comes about
Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]:C, 8yo boy, takes paraffin lamp from unattended open manhole cover and goes down into the area to explore. Owing to complicated scientific reasons, this triggers an explosion and C is badly burnt.
Lord Morris: Damage by burning was the “kind” of damage in question
And no distinction between burning caused by flame of lamp and burning caused by unforeseeable explosion.
Would be overly pedantic
And unjust to say can only have damages if spilled lamp and burnt child
Not if lamp exploded in child’s face causing burns while he was playing with it
Giliker: damage to property will be divided into different kinds of damage e.g. “damage by fire”, “damage by fouling”
Page v Smith [1996]
Personal injury is generally treated as indivisible
Is foreseeability of the “way the damage is caused” a relevant factor?
Giliker: much depends on the facts of the case which way the Judges will swing.
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Lord Reid: fact that lamp acted in unpredictable way
And child was burned owing to unforeseeable explosion
Does not mean D can escape liability
Lord Morris: would be manifestly unjust if this was the case.
Otherwise = too remote.
Doughty v Turner Manufactuaring Ltd [1964]:
D’s not liable b/c risk was very substantially different from any that could be foreseen.
General approach = more liberal however
Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000]
Lord Steyn:
Court has to judge nature of the risk which ought to be foreseen
Owing to circumstances – inquisitive nature of children, fact boat could have been easily moved and Council said was under duty to remove it
Adopted much more broad view of risk
Was it foreseeable that children would meddle with the boat causing some physical injury?
Not just “was it foreseeable that children would suffer minor injuries owing to rotting boards?”
Need not foresee “extent” of the damage for D to be liable.
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Lord Reid: defendants can be liable even when damage of greater extent not foreseeable, but damage of the same kind but minor is foreseeable, and greater damage results
Only way to escape liability is show it is damage of a different type.
Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000]:
Lord Hoffman:
If X determines a minor risk (e.g. minor scratches, broken leg)
And then a wider risk materialises (e.g. broken back)
the wider risk would also fall within the scope of the duty unless
it was different in kind from that which should have been foreseen AND
either wholly unforeseeable (as the fire risk was assumed to be in The Wagon Mound No. 1 )
OR so remote that it could be “brushed aside as far-fetched”
Lord Steyn:
Need not even show that type of injury is foreseeable
If you ought to see a reasonably foreseeable risk of personal injury to C
Then you are liable regardless of extent of that injury (i.e. major rather than minor)
Eggshell Rule
Generally held that although damage owing to D’s thin skull is not reasonably foreseeable
Tort law makes D take C as he finds him.
Thus, if minor damage owing to D’s negligence is reasonably foreseeable
And this brings on a heart attack
D will be liable for C’s death, despite lack of reasonable foresight
Stapleton: Just foreseeability?
Concern with attenuation of responsibility
Lamb v Camden LBC [1981]:
Lord Denning: often, foreseeability is not a useful guide
Because the amount of damage that can arise from a foreseeable act of negligence
Does not always stop at the instant act of negligence
It can go on an awful long while.
E.g. Home Office allow through negligence, a youth offender to escape
Are they to be responsible for the damage the offender does 6 years in advance?
Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqui Airways
Lord Nicholls:
The question to ask is to what extent ought D be held liable?
This, thought not always openly acknowledged by the courts, involves a value judgement
Writ large, the second inquiry of remoteness asks to what extent D ought fairly or reasonably or justly to be held liable for.
Concern with disproportion
Some people set scope of liability
E.g. New York
Only liable for next house along burning down to your negligent fire in your house
Not...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Notes.
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB tort law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Tort Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest results in ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started