This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Torts Law Notes

Torts B Summary Remoteness Notes

Updated Torts B Summary Remoteness Notes

Torts Law Notes

Torts Law

Approximately 398 pages

Here you will find both extended and summarised torts law notes for the entire Monash University topic (Both Torts A and Torts B).

The summary notes are an excellent exam help, with steps to work out whether a particular tort is found in a problem question, and relevant precedent and case citations for that HD answer. They are short enough for use in an exam, but detailed enough that you will never miss a point.

The extended provide comprehensive information about all areas of the subject...

Available here

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Torts Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Remoteness

  1. Reasonably Foreseeable:

    1. D will not be liable for a P’s injury if that injury is too remote

  2. Remoteness is a two stage inquiry (Metrolink) First question: What is the proper categorisation of the particular kind of harm to which the loss belongs (identify the particular type of genus of harm)

    1. In an ordinary case, a broad categorisation is appropriate Metrolink In a case involving an unusual injury, a narrower categorisation of the kind of law is appropriate Metrolink

    2. Case Law: Broad approach:

      1. All types of mental disturbance –eg. schizophrenia – fell into the category of ‘mental harm’ Mount Isa Mines v Pusey

      2. Hughes v Lord Advocate: the way the injury came about is not the question being asked. ‘burning by explosion’ came under ‘burning’

      3. Does not matter if the particular occurrence is rare. Mental illness following trauma is foreseeable Nader v urban Transit Authority

    3. Case Law: Narrow approach:

      1. Harm from rats didn’t include harm from their urine Tremain v Pike

      2. Injury by eruption does not fall under injury from splashing Doughty v Turner

  3. Second Question: Was that kind of harm reasonably foreseeable as a result of the D’s kind of carelessness?

    1. Question: Was it reasonably foreseeable to a reasonable person in the position of the D that D’s kind of carelessness may result in the damage of the same kind as that suffered by the P or to a class of persons to which P belong? Wagonmound #1

    2. Question is: Whether a reasonable person in the position of the defendant ought to have foreseen loss of that particular kind or genus.

      1. To be reasonably foreseeable a risk must be real (not farfetched or fanciful) Wagonmound #2

        • You must take into light the special knowledge of the individual (eg. if they knew what they were doing was dangerous)

        • It does not matter that it is foreseeable even though the risk of the actual event occurring was very low

      2. What must you foresee?

        • Must foresee the kind of injury sustained by the P Wagonmound #1

        • It is not necessary that the precise harm which the P suffered was foreseeable Mount Isa Mines v Pusey

        • Not necessary that the precise chain of events leading to the harm have been foreseeable: Hughes v Lord Advocate

  4. ...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Torts Law Notes.

More Torts Law Samples