Tort Law - Remoteness

Remoteness is another key element of tort law that examines the link between the duty of care owed by the defendant to the loss suffered by the claimant. Remoteness is also known as legal causation and most commonly sits alongside factual causation.
There are a number of different people or things that can act as a novus actus interveniens (new intervening act) and break the chain of causation. This includes third parties extraneous to the case, other events such as acts of God (Carslogie Steamship Co. v Royal Norwegian Government [1952]) and even the actions of the claimant herself (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945) can act to break the chain of causation.
In terms of a test for remoteness, Lord Reid in Dorset Yacht Co. v Home Office [1970] argued that an intervening act must be less than "very likely" to happen whereas Oliver L.J. in Lamb v Camden LBC [1985] submitted that an Intervening act is what the reasonable man “would actually foresee if he thought about it”.
Lord Denning in Lamb was not particularly satisfied with either of these tests and instead noted that a range of policy factors play a part when a court is coming to a decision.
As an example the actions of rescuers will rarely be seen as breaking the chain of causation (The Oropesa [1943]) unless those actions are especially foolish (Knightley v Johns [1982]).
Acts of the claimant can end up being a complete or partial defence for a defendant (McKew v Holland [1969]). However the claimant still has to have acted negligently rather than by her own volition, they are held to the same standard of the reasonable man (Pigney v Pointer’s Services [1957]) and there must also be factual and legal causation (Jones v Livox Quarries [1952]).
The extent of the damage that any defendant will be liable for was limited in The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] when it was held that defendants will only be liable for the kinds of damage that could have reasonably been foreseen. Nevertheless the practical effect of this case was mitigated by the egg shell skull rule (Smith v Leech Brain [1962]) to cover any kind of physical harm. The rules for property damage are slightly more stringent (The Liesbosch [1933]) but even here the claimant will still be able to make a full claim so long as they have mitigated their losses (Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Broderick [2002]; Lagden v O’Connor [2004]).
For pure economic loss where a person has a duty of care to provide information and that information forms the basis for another person’s action; they are (when negligent) only liable for foreseeable consequences of the information being wrong (SAAMCO [1999]).

[@jyotsnachowdhury6186]

Your videos are wonderful. Thank you.

[@emailaddy593]

Without a doubt the clearest Law videos available on youtube 5 *****

[@marksewe114]

Superb! Absolutely superb!

[@comordor]

Hello Marcus!! You are truly wonderful mate. Can you please do a video presentation on why the tests of remoteness of damage in contract and tort should be different. Thanks mate

[@errolkim1334]

Hi thanks for your effort and time, it is appreciated.
I just opened a big expensive text book in Tort Law, turned to the chapter called "Remoteness" and it immediately delved into a discussion of Re Polemis and The Wagon Mound.
Yet the Novus Actus material was all covered in the previous chapter entitled "Causation".
Can you explain what is going on, thank you, it is appreciated.

[@gcmcbowman1884]

Great information mate

[@aliyujafar8538]

Thanks alot

[@lindascoon4652]

Hello thank you for your videos. I just have a question about causation. Is proximate cause the same as remoteness. If not where does it fit in

[@marcuscleaver]

Maybe I'm wrong but isn't that an American term?

[@RahatTheKiller]

@6:47 did you mean to say 'claimant' instead of 'defendant'?

[@gcmcbowman1884]

Story of my life

[@Vesivian]

You wouldn't be any chance able to put out some contract law videos before my first year law exam within a week would you? XD

[@brigoose7945]

van leaves handbrake off, rolls down hill. 2 padestrians dive out of the way and the van goes through the shop window, glass goes everywere and his a padestrian. Factually but for test hes responsible for damage and hurt pedestrians. Legally the defendant was the cause for the claimants loss... for shop damage, profits from shop and damage caused to the padestrian who hurt himself diving out of the way and cutting himself of glass.....that right?

[@sarahwill9759]

The years of some of the cases appear to be wrong...