REMOTENESS – Is the damage is too remote? additional Spencer v Wincanton act which very likely to happen will not break COC and this
mechanism of controlling tortious liability Fact similar to McKew, COA stated level of unreasonable held to be the case with vandalism of the boys.
Original D Neg + Add factors (NIA) = Damages which will break COC must be very high. Here, C’s action in
• C (Foreseeable attempting to fill his car with petrol, despite the fact that he • Behaviour
• 3P Consequences) was handicapped, had not reached this level. However, 1/3 If sufficiently unreasonable will break COC
• Natural • that contributory neg was applied. Knightley v Johns
unanticipated Following a motor accident in a tunnel caused by the D’s
outcome Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis neg, a police officer gave an order which resulted in a second
• outcome C’s partner had committed suicide in police cell in a accident which injured the C. Held D was not liable for
which more
situation police had breached their DOC to supervise him. second accident. The action of the police constituted such
extensive
Held this not broken COC because it was precise risk against unreasonable departure from correct practice that it would
than would be
expected which the police had a duty to guard. Damage was reduced, be treated as a new act and the sole cause of the second
• occurs in an however, on the grounds of contributory neg. accident.
unusual way
Q1: What amounts to NAI? Action by 3P Natural Event
Action by the C Only if the third party’s act was unforeseeable The natural event must have been exceptional.
The claimant's own conduct will only break the chain of • Rescuer An unanticipated intervention might come from wind,
causation if it is unreasonable or reckless in the Traditionally favorable in law, Haynes v Harywood lighting, storms or even chemical reaction. Unlikely to be
circumstances Unless rescuer who negligently causes further damage has within risk of original neg D, at the same time if it breaks
McKew v Holland broken COC, COC then C would leave the injury/damage within any
C had been injured in work-related accident for which his The Oropesa compensation.
employer was liable. Knowing that his leg was weak, C A collision between 2 ships was partially due to fault of the Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian
descended a steep staircase with no handrail. C leg gave D. In attempting to rescue his crew, the master took action Government
way and fee down the stair, breaking his ankle. Held the C which resulted in the drowning of 9 men. Held the chain was D caused damage to C’s ship, requiring repairs which would
own unreasonable behaviour, in putting himself in a not broken, the emergency situation had been created by take approximately 10 days. Some temporary work was
dangerous situation, broken the COC. His employer was not the D and for this liability to cease a completely “new cause” done in England but then, while sailing to the US, where
liable for the effect of the 2nd accident. would have been necessary. further repair were to be undertaken, it was caught in a
c/f storm at sea necessitating an extra 30 days repair when it
Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets • Medical Treatment reaches America. Held despite the C’s argument that it was
As a result of D’s neg the C had to wear a neck brace, which Only break the COC where has been gross negligence owing to the D that the ship was caught in storm, this event
restricted her ability to use her bifocal glasses. This caused Wright c Cambridge Medical Group was held to broken COC. Therefore the D only liable for
her to miss her step on a staircase and fall down some step, Neg diagnosis the C’s condition by hospital did not break the repair costs of the 1st collision and not for loss of profit
sustaining further injuries. Held C’s conduct in walking down COC created by medical professional who first neg delayed during the days in which it was being repaired for both
the step had not been unreasonable and therefore the D the C’s referral to that hospital. collision and storm damage concurrently.
was liable for the additional injuries conduct by her fall.
• Deliberately wrongful act
Level of unreasonable by C is relatively low, Court may Very likely to happen will not break COC
approach it in term if defence of contributory neg rather Home office v Dorser Yacht Co
than NAI. The deliberate wrongful act of Borstal trainees in colliding
with the C’s yacht would have broken COC from the guard
neg supervision but this was not accepted by the court. An
mechanism of controlling tortious liability Fact similar to McKew, COA stated level of unreasonable held to be the case with vandalism of the boys.
Original D Neg + Add factors (NIA) = Damages which will break COC must be very high. Here, C’s action in
• C (Foreseeable attempting to fill his car with petrol, despite the fact that he • Behaviour
• 3P Consequences) was handicapped, had not reached this level. However, 1/3 If sufficiently unreasonable will break COC
• Natural • that contributory neg was applied. Knightley v Johns
unanticipated Following a motor accident in a tunnel caused by the D’s
outcome Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis neg, a police officer gave an order which resulted in a second
• outcome C’s partner had committed suicide in police cell in a accident which injured the C. Held D was not liable for
which more
situation police had breached their DOC to supervise him. second accident. The action of the police constituted such
extensive
Held this not broken COC because it was precise risk against unreasonable departure from correct practice that it would
than would be
expected which the police had a duty to guard. Damage was reduced, be treated as a new act and the sole cause of the second
• occurs in an however, on the grounds of contributory neg. accident.
unusual way
Q1: What amounts to NAI? Action by 3P Natural Event
Action by the C Only if the third party’s act was unforeseeable The natural event must have been exceptional.
The claimant's own conduct will only break the chain of • Rescuer An unanticipated intervention might come from wind,
causation if it is unreasonable or reckless in the Traditionally favorable in law, Haynes v Harywood lighting, storms or even chemical reaction. Unlikely to be
circumstances Unless rescuer who negligently causes further damage has within risk of original neg D, at the same time if it breaks
McKew v Holland broken COC, COC then C would leave the injury/damage within any
C had been injured in work-related accident for which his The Oropesa compensation.
employer was liable. Knowing that his leg was weak, C A collision between 2 ships was partially due to fault of the Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian
descended a steep staircase with no handrail. C leg gave D. In attempting to rescue his crew, the master took action Government
way and fee down the stair, breaking his ankle. Held the C which resulted in the drowning of 9 men. Held the chain was D caused damage to C’s ship, requiring repairs which would
own unreasonable behaviour, in putting himself in a not broken, the emergency situation had been created by take approximately 10 days. Some temporary work was
dangerous situation, broken the COC. His employer was not the D and for this liability to cease a completely “new cause” done in England but then, while sailing to the US, where
liable for the effect of the 2nd accident. would have been necessary. further repair were to be undertaken, it was caught in a
c/f storm at sea necessitating an extra 30 days repair when it
Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets • Medical Treatment reaches America. Held despite the C’s argument that it was
As a result of D’s neg the C had to wear a neck brace, which Only break the COC where has been gross negligence owing to the D that the ship was caught in storm, this event
restricted her ability to use her bifocal glasses. This caused Wright c Cambridge Medical Group was held to broken COC. Therefore the D only liable for
her to miss her step on a staircase and fall down some step, Neg diagnosis the C’s condition by hospital did not break the repair costs of the 1st collision and not for loss of profit
sustaining further injuries. Held C’s conduct in walking down COC created by medical professional who first neg delayed during the days in which it was being repaired for both
the step had not been unreasonable and therefore the D the C’s referral to that hospital. collision and storm damage concurrently.
was liable for the additional injuries conduct by her fall.
• Deliberately wrongful act
Level of unreasonable by C is relatively low, Court may Very likely to happen will not break COC
approach it in term if defence of contributory neg rather Home office v Dorser Yacht Co
than NAI. The deliberate wrongful act of Borstal trainees in colliding
with the C’s yacht would have broken COC from the guard
neg supervision but this was not accepted by the court. An
