Law Of Torts I

LAW OF TORTS I

Trinidad & Tobago Hospitality & Tourism Institute Hospitality Law & Insurance: BC 229 Lecturer: Ms. V. Maharaj

Topics                

Definition of Tort Tort & Crime Tort & Contract Aspects of Negligence Duty of Care Breach of Duty Likelihood of Harm Seriousness of Injury Risked The Importance or Utility of Defendant’s Activity Cost & Practicability of Measures to Avoid Harm Intelligence Knowledge Skill Proof of Negligence: Res Ipsa Loquitur Causation Remoteness of Damage

Definition of Tort A tort may be defined broadly as a civil wrong involving a breach of duty fixed by the law, such duty being owed to persons generally. The essential aim of the law of torts is to compensate persons harmed by the wrongful conduct of others. Such damage may take any of several different forms: such as physical injury to persons; physical damage to property; injury to reputation; and damage to economic interests.

Tort & Crime The main purpose of the criminal law is to protect the interest of the public at large by punishing those found guilty of crimes, and it is those types of conduct which are most detrimental to society and to the public welfare which are treated as criminal. A conviction for a crime is obtained by means of a criminal prosecution. A tort is a purely civil wrong which gives rise to civil proceedings the purpose of such proceedings being primarily not to punish wrongdoers for the protection of the public at large, but to give the individual plaintiff compensation for the damage which he has suffered as a result of the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

Tort & Contract Tort and contract are both areas of civil law. The traditional distinction between tort and contract is that in tort the duties of the parties are fixed by law, whereas in contract they are fixed by the parties themselves. One of the most significant distinctions between tort and contract concerns he aim of an award of damages. Tort law is designed to protect the status quo, in that the plaintiff’s position should not be made worse by the defendant’s acts. Hence the plaintiff should be restored as far as possible to the position he would have been in had the tort not been committed. In contract on the other hand, the defendant is liable to put the plaintiff in the position he would have been in had the contract been carried out.

Aspects of Negligence Negligence is the most important and dynamic of all torts. The tort of negligence may be defined broadly as the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff. There are three elements to the tort:iii. iv. v.

A duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; Breach of they duty by the defendant; and Damage to the plaintiff which is legally deemed to be the consequence of that breach of duty.

Duty of Care The first question to be determined in any action for negligence is whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. In general a duty of care will be owed wherever in the circumstances it is foreseeable that if the defendant does not exercise due care, the plaintiff will be harmed.

This forseeability test was laid down in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]. A manufacturer of ginger beer put the ginger beer in an opaque bottle which was stoppered and sealed and contained the decomposed remains of a snail. When the contents were drunk by a consumer, Mrs. Donoghue, she suffered illness as a result of this, and took the manufacturers to court. It was held that the manufacturers were liable in tort, and they owed a duty to her as the ultimate consumer, to take care she was not injured by a negligently manufactured product. A manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation of the products will result in an injury to the consumer’s life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care.

Duty of Care This case established “the neighbour principle”:You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be- persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.

Duty of Care The duty of care principle is set rather broadly and public policy requires some limits to be set on the range of liability. Thus a more precise two stage test for the existence of a duty of care was set out in Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977]:In order to establish that a duty of care arises in a particular situation, the question has to be approached in two stages. First, one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage, there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighborhood such that, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter. Secondly, if the question is answered affirmatively, it is necessary o consider whether there ate any considerations which ought to negative, or reduce or limit the scope of duty to the class of person to whom it is owed.

Duty of Care Austin v Attorney General [1986] High Court, Barbados Facts H, a convicted prisoner, escaped from Glendairy Prison and entered the plaintiff’s dwelling house where he attacked and seriously injured her with a knife. On the day of his escape, H was one of a number pf prisoners being instructed in woodwork in the carpenter’s shop at the prison. Two prison officers were in supervision. One of these left for a short period, and during his absence H escaped. The plaintiff alleged that the escape of H was caused by the negligence of the Superintendent of Prisons whose duty it was to supervise, control and be responsible for the conduct of prisoners, and that the defendant was vicariously responsible for the consequences of such negligence.

Duty of Care Austin v Attorney General [1986] High Court, Barbados. Held There was no sufficient relationship of proximity between the Superintendent of Prisons and the plaintiff such as to give rise to a duty of care towards the plaintiff. The damage suffered by the plaintiff was too remote

Duty of Care Reasoning There can be no doubt that a Superintendent of Prisons has a common law duty to be careful and in general must owe a duty of care to members of the public with whom he is in a sufficient relationship of neighborhood that, within reasonable contemplation, carelessness on his part is likely to cause them damage. But it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which would negative or limit that scope of duty. The risk of sustaining damage from the tortious acts of criminals is shared by the public at large. It has never been recognized at common law as giving rise to any cause of action against anyone but the criminal himself. It would seem arbitrary, and therefore unjust, to single out for the special privilege of being able to recover compensation from the authorities responsible for the prevention of crime a person whose property was damaged buy the tortious act of a criminal merely because the damage to him happened to be caused by a criminal who had escaped custody before completion of his sentence.

Breach of Duty Having decided that a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff, the court’s next task is to determine whether the defendant was in breach of such duty. The court considers whether or not a reasonable man, placed in the defendant's position would have acted as the defendant did. In deciding what a reasonable man would have done in the circumstances, and in assessing the standard of care expected of the defendant, the court may take into account what may be called the “risk factor”.

Breach of Duty The risk factor has four elements:iii. iv. v. vi.

The likelihood of harm; The seriousness of the injury that is risked; The importance or utility of the defendant’s conduct; and The cost and practicability of measures to avoid the harm.

The Likelihood of Harm The greater the likelihood that the defendant’s conduct will cause harm, the greater the amount of caution required of him. Bolton v Stone [1951] The plaintiff was struck and injured by a cricket ball as he was walking along a public road adjacent to a cricket ground. The plaintiff contended that the defendant, who was in charge of the ground, had been negligent in failing to take precautions to ensure that cricket balls did not escape from the ground and injure passers by. Held Taking into account such factors as the distance of the pitch from the road, the presence of a seven foot high fence, and the infrequency with which balls had escaped previously, the likelihood of harm to passers- by was so slight that the defendant had not been negligent in allowing cricket to be played without having taken further precautions such as raising the height of the fence.

Likelihood of Harm Hilder v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd. [1961] The plaintiff whilst riding his motorcycle along a road, crashed and sustained injuries after being struck by a football kicked from the defendant’s adjacent land where children were in the habit of playing. Held The defendant was negligent in having prevent footballs from being kicked circumstances, the likelihood of considerable.

failed to take precautions to onto the road, since, in the injury to passers-by was

Likelihood of Harm Mowser v DeNobriga [1969] High Court, Trinidad and Tobago

Facts The plaintiff was a spectator at a race meeting. A riderless horse left the race tract at a point where there was no outer rail or fence, and struck and injured the plaintiff. She brought an action in negligence against the defendants, the organizers of the race meeting. Held The plaintiff was a person to whom a duty of care was owed. There was a real risk of injury to spectators in the event of a horse galloping off the track, and the defendants were negligent in having failed to take sufficient precautions to protect the plaintiff and other spectators.

Seriousness of Injury Risked The gravity of the consequences if an accident were to occur must also be taken into account. Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] The defendants employed the plaintiff as a mechanic in their maintenance department. Although they knew that he had only one good eye, the did not provide him with goggles for his work. While he was attempting to remove a part from underneath a vehicle, a piece of metal flew into his good eye and he was blinded. Held The defendants had been negligent in not providing the particular workman with goggles, since they must have been aware of the gravity of the consequences if he were to suffer an injury to his one good eye.

Seriousness of Injury Risked Rhyna v Transport and Harbours Department [1985] Guyana Facts The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a casual watchman. The plaintiff had lost sight in his left eye as a result of a previous accident. The plaintiff was instructed to catch the line from a vessel about to moor at the wharf, which was contrary to the established system for the mooring of vessels and took no account of the appellant’s disability. The rope struck the appellant in his right eye and he was blinded. Held The defendant was in breach of its duty as employer to provide a safe system of work and effective supervision.

Reasoning The plaintiff’s peculiar disability enhanced the risk of injury if the rope was not thrown accurately. This risk was not so remote or so small as to be unforeseeable, notwithstanding that an accident of this nature involving personal injury had not occurred before. The test is- what precautions would the ordinary reasonable and prudent employer take in the circumstances? The relevant considerations would include all those facts, including disability, which would affect the conduct of a reasonable and prudent employer. The reasonable and prudent employer would not be influenced merely by the greater or lesser probability of an accident of this nature occurring, but also by the gravity of the consequences if it did occur. The normal system, which operated very safely for a two-eye man, was wholly inadequate. The defendant's liability in tort arises from his failure to take reasonable care in regard to the particular employee and all the circumstances relevant to that employee must be taken into consideration.

The Importance or Utility of Defendant’s Activity The seriousness of the risk created by the defendant’s activity must be weighed against the importance or utility of such activity, and where the defendant’s conduct has great social value, he may be justified to exposing others to risks which would not otherwise be justifiable. The purpose to be served, if sufficiently important, justifies the assumption of abnormal risk. In all cases one must balance the risk against the end to be achieved, and the commercial end to make a profit is very different from the human end to save life and limb.

The Importance or Utility of Defendant’s Activity Daborn v Bath Tramways [1946] In determining whether a party is negligent the standard of reasonable care is that which is reasonably to be demanded in the circumstances. A relevant circumstance to take into account may be he importance of the end to be served by acting in this way or that. As have been often pointed out, if all the trains in this country were restricted to a speed of 5 m.p.h., there would be fewer accidents, but our national life would be intolerably slowed down. The purpose to be served, if sufficiently important, justifies the assumption of abnormal risk.

The Importance or Utility of Defendant’s Activity Byfield v Attorney General [1980] Jamaica Facts Two constables were chasing an armed man who was wanted for various offences , including robbery and firearms offences. The man ran into the yard of the plaintiff’s house from where he fired a shot at the pursuing constables. The constables returned the fire, but accidentally shot the plaintiff who was also in the yard but unnoticed by the constables.

Held The constables were not liable in negligence since they were acting in the execution of their duty in “hot pursuit” of a gunman. They were entitled to defend themselves and were under no duty to retreat. Reasoning Were the constables negligent having regard to all the circumstances? In considering this question it is desirable to refer to the definition of negligence given in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.:“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or do something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” These constables were acting in execution of their duty in “hot pursuit” to arrest a gunman who was in their view committing other offences, viz. illegal possession of a firearm and shooting with intent. They were, at the time they fired their gun, the target of a gunman about to shoot again. They were entitled to defend themselves.

Cost & Practicability of Measures to Avoid Harm Another relevant consideration is how costly and practicable it would have been for the defendant to have taken precautions to eliminate or minimize the risk, for in every case of foreseeable risk, it is a matter of balancing the risk against the measures necessary to eliminate it. A reasonable man would only neglect a risk (of small magnitude) if he had some valid reason for doing so, e.g. it would involve considerable expense to eliminate the risk.

Latimer v. A.E.C. Ltd.[1952] Facts During an unusually heavy rainstorm the floors of a factory were flooded and an oily cooling mixture, which normally was contained in a channel in the floor, along which it was pumped to machinery, rose and mixed with the flood waters. Consequently, when the flood subsided, the floors were slippery. As far as supplies permitted, sawdust was spread on the floor, but some areas were left untreated. A workman, working in a gangway which had not been treated with sawdust was attempting to load a heavy barrel on to a trolley when he slipped and injured his ankle. In an action against his employers Held The employers had not been negligent for they had done all that a reasonable employer could be expected to do, bearing in mind the degree of risk involved due to the slippery floor.

Latimer v. A.E.C. Ltd.[1952] Reasoning It is always necessary to consider what measures the defendant ought to have taken, and to say whether they could reasonably be expected of him. Here the employers knew that the floor was slippery and that there was some risk in letting the men work on it; but, still, they could not reasonably be expected to shut down the whole works and send all the men home. In every case of foreseeable risk, it is a matter of balancing the risk against the measures necessary to eliminate it. In this case, in the circumstances of this torrential flood, it is quite clear the defendants did everything they could reasonably be expected to do. It would be quite unreasonable to expect them to send all the men home.

Intelligence In determining whether the defendant in his actions came up to the standard of a reasonable man, the court will measure those actions against the conduct expected of a person of normal intelligence, and the defendant will not be excused for having acted ‘to the best of his own judgment’, if his ‘best’ is below that to be expected of a man of ordinary intelligence. It is no defence that the particular defendant had unusually slow or a lower-than-average intelligence quotient.

Knowledge 2.

A man is expected to have that degree of common sense or knowledge of everyday things which a normal adult would possess. "Common knowledge" does not mean that it is universal any more than "common sense", but all persons living under our system of law must be taken to have acted in accordance with them.

4.

Where the defendant holds a particular position, he will be expected to show the degree of knowledge normally expected of a person in that position.

6.

With regard to the facts and circumstances surrounding him, the defendant is expected to observe what a reasonable man would notice.

Knowledge

4. A reasonable occupier is expected to employ experts to check those installations which he cannot, through his lack of technical knowledge, check himself.

Haseldine v. Daw & Son Ltd [1941] The access to upper floor flats in a block which was let out in a number of tenancies was by a hydraulic lift. The landlord made a contract with a firm of engineers to adjust, clean and lubricate the machinery of the lift once every month, to repack the glands when needed, and to report to him if any repairs to the lift were necessary. The lift was thirty-five years old and to the landlord's knowledge had never been overhauled. The engineers told the landlord that the rams of the lift were badly worn and scored and ought to be replaced by new rams, but they did not consider, and, therefore, did not tell the owner, that the lift was dangerous to use. An employee of the engineers repacked one of the glands and he negligently failed to replace it properly, causing the gland to fracture when the lift was worked. Next day the plaintiff, who wished to visit one of the tenants of the flats on business used the lift to reach the tenant's flat, when, owing to the fracture of the gland, the lift fell to the bottom of the well and the plaintiff was injured.

Knowledge Haseldine v. Daw & Son Ltd [1941] Held The only obligation on the landlord was to take care that the lift was reasonably safe, and that he had fulfilled that obligation by employing a competent firm of engineers to make periodical inspections of the lift, to adjust it and to report on it, and that, therefore, the landlord was not liable.

Knowledge 5. Where the defendant has actual knowledge of particular circumstances, the standard of care may be increased. ref. Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] 6. A higher standard of care will be owed towards young children, elderly persons and pregnant women because of their susceptibility to injury.

Knowledge Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor [1922] The father of a boy, aged seven, who died from eating the berries of a poisonous shrub growing in some public gardens in Glasgow, sued the Corporation as the proprietors and custodians of the gardens for damages for the death of his son. The plaintiff claimed that on a piece of fenced ground in the gardens the defenders grew, among other specimen plants, a shrub bearing poisonous berries which presented a tempting appearance to children and this enclosed piece of ground was open to the public, access being by a gate which could be easily opened by young children, and was in a part of the gardens much frequented by children.

Knowledge Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor [1922] The plaintiff's son, with some other children, entered the gardens and ate some of the berries of this poisonous shrub and died; that the defenders knew that these berries were a deadly poison, but took no precautions to warn children of the danger of picking the berries of this shrub or to prevent them from doing so; and that there was no adequate notice in the gardens warning the public of the dangerous character of the specimen shrubs growing therein Held A measure of care appropriate to the inability or disability of those who are immature or feeble in mind or body is due from others, who know of or ought to anticipate the presence of such persons within the scope and hazard of their own operations.

Skill A person who hold himself out as having a particular skill, either in relation to the public generally or in relation to a person for whom he is performing a service, will be expected to show the average amount of competence normally possessed by persons doing that kind of work, and he will be liable for negligence if he falls short of that standard. Whiteford v Hunter [1950] The plaintiff claimed damages resulting from an erroneous diagnosis of the defendant that he had cancer of the bladder. The argument mainly around whether the defendant should have used one or other of two special cystoscopes, neither of which he had and both of which at the time were difficult to obtain. Held In the circumstances the defendant was not negligent. A defendant charged with negligence can clear himself if he shows that he acted in accordance with general and approved practice.

Proof of Negligence Res Ipsa Loquitur The burden of proving negligence always lies on the plaintiff. Where the cause of an accident is unknown he may be assisted by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the facts speak for themselves). This principle is clearly defined in the case of Scott v London and St. Katherine Docks Co. Ltd. [1865] “Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care” This shifts the duty to the defendant to show either that the accident was due to a specific cause which did not involve negligence on his part or that he used reasonable care in the matter.

Res Ipsa Loquitur In order to rely on this doctrine the plaintiff must establish two things:3.

The thing causing the damage was under the management or control of the defendant or his servants.

5.

The accident was of such a kind as would not, in the ordinary course of things, have happened without negligence on the defendant’s part. Negligence will be presumed where the common experience of mankind shows that the type of mishap which occurred would not normally have happened unless the defendant had been careless.

Barnett v Belize Brewing Co Ltd [1983] Facts The appellant, Anthony Barnett, said that he purchased a bottle of Belikin stout from Albert Marsden, the bartender, at a restaurant called “Mars Disco Den”, at Belmopan. Belikin stout and beer are manufactured by the respondent, Belize Brewing Co Ltd (the company) and sold in brown crown-capped bottles which the appellant said “you cannot see through easily”. The bartender, Mr. Marsden, opened the bottle and handed it to the appellant. He took one sip, then another, and tasted some “slimy stuff” in it of which he complained to the bartender. They both went outside where the appellant poured out the contents of the bottle and there fell out what he described as “a slimy thing about an inch and a quarter, shaped and coloured blackish brown like a toad”. Mr. Marsden (the bartender) described it as “something kind of greenish, a tadpole, fell out”. The appellant vomited and said he was still upset the next day. Based on those brief facts the appellant sued the company for damages in negligence.

Held The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in the circumstances of the present case. Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence affecting the onus of proof. A case of negligence had been established against the company based on the presumption of negligence raised by the facts of the appellant’s case. It was then for the company to rebut the presumption by proving it was not negligent. The question then arises whether or not the company has rebutted the presumption of negligence. On the acceptable evidence led by the company it appears that the presumption of negligence has not been rebutted, in that the company has not shown that all reasonable precautions had been taken in 1977–78 to avoid what happened to the appellant.

Jamaica Omnibus Services Ltd v Hamilton [1970] Facts The plaintiff, a child aged nine years, fell through an emergency door of an omnibus belonging to the defendant company while the bus was in motion, and was injured. He had joined the bus at Parade, Kingston, and was seated immediately beside the emergency door in the middle of the bus on the offside. The bus came to a fare stage stop at Antrim Road and Oakdene Avenue, where it let off and took on passengers. It then proceeded along Oakdene Avenue, and as it took a deep curve to the left, the emergency door flew open and the plaintiff fell through the open doorway. On a claim for damages for negligence the plaintiff relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Jamaica Omnibus Services Ltd v Hamilton [1970] Held The plaintiff could rely on the assistance of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and negligence might be found as a matter of inference from the mere fact that the door flew open while the bus was in motion. The defendant company had then to show either directly or inferentially that the catches of the door had been released by some unauthorized person in circumstances which excluded the want of care in their driver or conductor, and this burden the defendant company did not discharge.

Reasoning The defendant must have known that the absence of reasonable care in the maintenance of the lock-mechanism of the emergency door so as to keep that mechanism free of defects which may cause the door to fly open; or in securing the catches of the door; or in guarding against the irresponsible action of meddlers, including passengers could result in the release of the catches of the door whilst the vehicle was in motion. With the consequence of the door flying open and a passenger in the position of the plaintiff being precipitated through the door and injured in the way in which the plaintiff was in fact injured. The defendant therefore owed a duty to the plaintiff to take that reasonable care. The critical question arises whether that duty has been breached. Was the defendant negligent? The plaintiff is in a position to rely on the assistance of the doctrine res ipsa loquitur. Negligence may be found as a matter of inference from the mere fact that the door flew open whilst the vehicle was in motion. In the result, it is clear that the onus upon the defendant has not been discharged.

Causation Having established that the defendant owed a duty of care to him and the defendant was in breach of that duty, the plaintiff must then prove that he has suffered damage for which the defendant is liable in law. There are two aspects to this requirement:iii.

Causation in fact; and

v.

Remoteness of damage in law.

Causation Causation in Fact The first question to be answered is: Did the defendant’s breach of duty in fact cause the damage? A useful test which is often employed is the ‘but-for’ test: that is to say, if the damage would not have happened but for the defendant’s negligent act, then that act will have caused the damage.

Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] Facts At a hospital casualty department, provided and run by the defendants, three fellow night-watchmen presented themselves, complaining to a nurse on duty that they had been vomiting for three hours after drinking tea. The nurse reported their complaints by telephone to the duty medical casualty officer, who instructed her to tell the men to go home to bed and call in their own doctors. That she did. The men then left, and, about five hours later, one of them died from poisoning by arsenic which had been introduced into the tea; he might have died from the poisoning even if he had been admitted to the hospital wards and treated with all care five hours before his death. His widow claimed that the death resulted from the defendants' negligence in not diagnosing or treating his condition when he presented himself at the casualty department.

Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] Held Since the defendants provided and ran the casualty department to which the deceased presented himself complaining of illness or injury, such a close and direct relationship existed between them and him that they owed him a duty to exercise the skill and care to be expected of a nurse and medical casualty officer acting reasonably. Hence, the medical casualty officer was negligent in not seeing and not examining the deceased, in not admitting him to the wards and in not treating him or causing him to be treated. Nevertheless, in light of the fact that he must have died of the poisoning even if he had been admitted to the wards five hours before his death and treated with all care, the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendants' negligence had caused the death; and the claim failed.

Twins Pharmacy Ltd v Marshall [1979] Facts The plaintiff, then seven years old, was injured while playing with a bicycle. On the following day she complained of pain in the left thigh, whereupon her mother purchased a bottle of Ioderm ointment from the appellant’s drug store. Iodex was the ointment desired, but on being told none was available, she accepted Ioderm as a substitute. Following on one application of the ointment on the leg, the child became sick with fever and had to be hospitalized and treated with antibiotics by a doctor. The plaintiff afterwards developed necrosis of the skin at the spot where the ointment had been rubbed by her mother. Chemical analysis revealed that the appellants had sold Ioderm compound with the label that was appropriate to Ioderm plain, ie, the label was misleading in that the label for Ioderm plain was put on a bottle containing Ioderm compound; although the mother admitted she was not misled since she had not asked for any one of the two varieties of Ioderm. The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries, consequential loss and expenses caused by the appellants’ alleged negligent manufacturing and bottling of a preparation called Ioderm ointment.

Twins Pharmacy Ltd v Marshall [1979] Held The negligent act of the defendants in putting the wrong label on the wrong bottle did not matter in this case because, the child’s skin being unbroken, the ointment had been used in exactly the same circumstances as the appropriate label would have directed. There was no evidence of negligence or any negligent compounding of Ioderm compound which caused the alleged necrosis. A case had not been made out that Ioderm compound had caused the injury complained of.

Remoteness of Damage The consequences of an act of carelessness on the part of the defendant may be far reaching. The concept of remoteness of damage is one way in which the law sets limits to the extent of a person’s liability for the consequences of his negligence. The basic rule is that a defendant will be liable only for those consequences of his negligent act which are not too remote in law, even tough the act may be said, on an application of the but-for test, to have caused the damages complained of.

The Wagon Mound [1961]

Facts The defendants chartered an oil-burning vessel, which was taking in bunkering oil in Sydney Harbour and a large quantity of the oil was, through the carelessness of their servants, allowed to spill into the harbour. The escaped furnace oil was carried by wind and tide beneath a wharf owned by the plaintiffs who were shipbuilders and ship repairers. The plaintiffs were refitting a ship, and were using electric and oxyacetylene welding equipment. Some cotton waste or rag on a piece of debris floating on the oil underneath the wharf was set on fire by molten metal falling from the wharf, and the flames from the cotton waste or rag set the floating oil afire and a conflagration developed which seriously damaged the wharf and equipment on it. The plaintiffs fled an action to recover compensation for the damage.

Held 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“. The appellants could not reasonably be expected to have known that the oil would catch fire, were not liable for the damage to the wharf. But they were liable for the fouling of the slipways, since that was a foreseeable consequence of the discharge of oil.