{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

(4) Remoteness - B REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE P has to show that...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
B. REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE P has to show that the damage caused was a foreseeable type of damage. OVERSEAS TANKSHIP (UK) LTD V MORTS DOCK & ENGINEERING CO LTD (“THE WAGON MOUND”) The damage must be “within the risk”. THE WAGON MOUND There are two approaches, the broad view and the narrow view. Depending on which view the court takes, the outcome could be different. However, the broad view is more widely accepted as opposed to the narrow view. The type of damage needs to be foreseeable, but the “precise concatenation of circumstances need not be envisaged.” HUGHES V LORD ADVOCATE As long as the type of damage is foreseeable, the extent of the damage does not have to be foreseeable. VACWELL ENGINEERING V BDH CHEMICALS For nervous shock, as long as physical damage is foreseeable, nervous shock is also recoverable. PAGE V SMITH (b) THE NARROW VIEW The way the damage was caused is important and can render the damage so different that it is not foreseeable.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}