Causation and Remoteness

1. 1[blank_start]Overseas Tankship (UK[blank_end]) Ltd v [blank_start]Morts Dock & Engineering[blank_end] Co Ltd (The [blank_start]WagonMound[blank_end]) (No 1) [1961] UKPC 1, [1961] AC 388
   • Oil from the appellants’ ship [blank_start]spilled into the water[blank_end] due to the carelessness of the
   appellants’ workers. The oil was carried through the water to the respondent’s wharf,
   where they were refitting a vessel using electric and oxyacetylene welding equipment.
   Molten metal fell from the wharf either onto a floating hence of cotton in the oil or onto
   flaming wood, which directly caused the oil to catch fire. The trial judge found that the
   appellants did not know and could not have reasonably foreseen that the oil, when
   spilled on water, was capable of being set alight.
   • The House of Lords allowed the appellant’s appeal, holding that, notwithstanding that the
   damage was a direct cause of the appellant’s negligence, it was not reasonably
   foreseeable and thus the appellants were not liable.
   • Viscount Simonds referred, at 415, to Manning J’s [the trial judge’s] ‘cri de coeur’ and
   noted that ‘[blank_start]Polemis[blank_end] has been so much discussed and qualified that it cannot claim, as
   counsel for the respondents urged for it, the status of a decision of such long standing
   that it should not be reviewed’.
   • Viscount Simonds pointed to the fact that since [blank_start]Hadley v Baxendale[blank_end], the law as to
   damages for contract and tort had been the same, yet [blank_start]Polemis[blank_end] ignored this. As his
   Lordship noted at 422, ‘the authority of Polemis has been severely shaken though lipservice
   has from time to time been paid to it’. he continued at 422-423,
   it does not seem consonant with current ideas of justice or morality that for an act of
   negligence, however slight or venial, which results in some trivial foreseeable damage,
   the actor should be liable for all consequences however unforeseeable and however
   grave, so long as they can be said to be ‘direct’.

   1. AOverseas Tankship (UK
   2. BMorts Dock & Engineering
   3. Cspilled into the water
   4. DHadley v Baxendale
   5. EWagonMound
   6. FPolemis
   7. GPolemis
2. 2In [blank_start]Hanrahan vMerck Sharpe Dohme[blank_end] (Ireland) Ltd, there was a question as to whether there existed a
   causal link between the defendant’s negligence and the damage to the plaintiff’s cattle.
   Henchy J applied res ipsa loquitor to hold that a [blank_start]causal link[blank_end] did apply. Thus, here policy
   again played an important role in proving a causal link, not merely in considering the
   extent of liability for damages caused.

   1. AHanrahan v Merck Sharpe Dohme
   2. Bcausal link
3. 3Snell v [blank_start]Farrell[blank_end]

   1. AFarrell
4. 4[blank_start]Smith New Court Securities v Scrimgeour[blank_end] Vickers [1996] UKHL 3, [1997] AC 254
   • An employee of the second defendant (the plaintiff’s broker) made false
   misrepresentations to the plaintiff that in buying shares in a public company he would be
   competing with two other bidders. The plaintiff bought over 28 million shares, holding
   them as a market-making risk and selling them at the appropriate opportunity arose. It
   subsequently emerged that a fraud had been committed on the company in which the
   plaintiff had invested. The plaintiff sold his shares for just over £11 million. At trial, the
   judge found that, had there been [blank_start]no misrepresentation[blank_end], the plaintiff would have bought
   the shares for 78p/share, rather than 82.25p/share. He held that the plaintiff was entitled
   to damages to measure of the difference between the purchase price and the true price,
   which he found to be 44p/share. The Court of Appeal were of the view that the true
   measure of damages was the difference between the price actually paid and the price
   which, absent the misrepresentation, the shares would have fetched on the open market.
   This was an action in the tort of deceit, the question being the correct measure of
   damages.
   • The House of Lords allowed the plaintiff’s appeal, holding, that where a contract was
   induced by fraudulent misrepresentation the measure of damages was reparation for all
   the loss directly caused by entering the transaction, whether or not it was foreseeable,
   and included consequential loss; that the plaintiff was under a duty to [blank_start]mitigate his loss[blank_end]
   12
   once he became aware of the fraud and that he had to give credit for any benefit
   received including, as a general rule, the market value of property acquired at the date of
   acquisition; but that the general rule as to market value at the date of acquisition would
   not normally apply where the misrepresentation continued to operate so as to induce the
   plaintiff to retain the asset, or where the circumstances were such that by reason of the
   fraud the plaintiff was locked into the property; and that, accordingly, in the
   circumstances since the plaintiff's loss flowed directly from the acquisition of the shares
   rather than from their retention and since to require it to give credit for a value of 78p per
   share as at the date of acquisition would not compensate it for its loss since it could not
   have sold the shares at that price on that date, the correct measure was the difference
   between the price paid and the amount subsequently realised on sale.

   1. ASmith New Court Securities v Scrimgeour
   2. Bno misrepresentation
   3. Cmitigate his loss
5. 5[blank_start]Simmons v British Steel[blank_end] plc (Scotland) [2004] UKHL 20, 2004 SLT 595
   • The pursuer was an employee of the defender. While working as a burner, he tripped
   and fell from the burning table and [blank_start]struck his head[blank_end] on a metal stanchion. There was a
   severe impact and he suffered injuries as a result. The Lord Ordinary in the Inner House
   awarded damages. After the accident, however, the pursuer suffered an exacerbation of
   a pre-existing skin condition and he developed a change in his personality which resulted
   in a severe depressive illness. He has not returned to work since the accident. The Lord
   Ordinary found that the pursuer's pre-existing skin condition was exacerbated and that
   he was suffering from a depressive illness and a complete change in his personality. But
   he was not satisfied that the pursuer had proved on balance of probabilities that either of
   these consequences had been caused by the accident. The key finding by the Lord
   Ordinary was that he became angry after the accident and that this was the cause of the
   exacerbated skin condition. The damage appeared to be too remote. The question
   whether the pursuer is entitled to damages for these consequences was the subject of
   the reclaiming motion in the Inner House and of the appeal from the Inner House to your
   Lordships.
   • The House of Lords [blank_start]dismissed[blank_end] the defender’s appeal, holding, inter alia, that as the
   pursuer had sustained physical injuries in the accident for which the defenders were
   liable, he was a primary victim, and the defenders were liable for both the physical and
   psychiatric injuries suffered by him whether or not these injuries were reasonably
   foreseeable; that the defenders had to take their victim as they found him; that, in this
   case, the aggravation of the pursuer’s skin condition and the anger which led to his
   depressive illness could both be assumed to fall within the scope of the defenders’
   liability, so as long as there was a causal connection between these symptoms and the
   accident; that while emotional reactions did not sound in damages, if they led to a
   recognised mental illness, there was no reason in principle why damages could not be
   recovered for that illness; that on the Lord Ordinary’s findings the anger began with the
   accident itself; that although the Lord Ordinary was not satisfied that the exacerbation of
   the pursuer’s skin condition was caused by the pursuer’s anger at the accident itself he
   had not asked whether this part of the pursuer’s anger had materially contributed to the
   exacerbation; that, on the evidence, the pursuer’s anger at the accident itself could not
   be dismissed as de minimis but made a material contribution to the development of the
   skin condition and the depressive mental illness that developed from it; and that it
   followed that the causal connection was established and that these were consequences
   for which the pursuer was entitled to damages

   1. ASimmons v British Steel
   2. Bstruck his head
   3. Cdismissed
6. 6[blank_start]Clements v Clements[blank_end] 2012 SCC 32, [2012] 2 SCR 181
   • The respondent had been riding a [blank_start]motorcycle[blank_end] with his wife, the appellant, in the
   passenger seat. The bike was about 45kg overloaded. A nail had punctured the rear tire
   unbeknownst to the respondent. Although the respondent was in a 100km/h zone, he
   accelerated to 120km/h to pass a car. The nail then fell out, the tire deflated, the bike
   began to wobble and they crashed. The appellant suffered a severe traumatic brain
   injury. The trial judge found that the respondent had in fact contributed to the injury.
   • The Supreme Court of Canada, LeBel and Rothstein JJ dissenting, allowed the appeal,
   holding that the trial huge had incorrectly applied the test of ‘[blank_start]material contribution[blank_end]’ and
   that the conventional ‘but for’ test should have been applied.
   • McLachlin CJ, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ
   discussed the approaches of the courts to the ‘but for’ and ‘material contribution’ tests.
   They noted that the ‘but for’ test generally involves ‘a common sense inference of ‘but
   for’ causation’. ([10]) They were of the opinion that material contribution could only apply,
   having regard to the Canadian cases and UK cases, generally speaking, where there
   was more than a single tortfeasor. Thus, a lack of scientific evidence alone was not
   sufficient to support a departure from the conventional test

   1. AClements v Clements
   2. Bmotorcycle
   3. Cmaterial contribution

Description

Law (Private Law remedies) Quiz on Causation and Remoteness, created by Micheál G on 25/04/2017.

Author

Micheál G

Language

English

Views

1

History

Created on 25 Apr 2017 · updated on 6 Apr 2018

Tags

lawprivate law remedies

Rating

No ratings yet

Rate this quiz

Rate this quiz

More on Causation and remoteness