Talk:Remoteness in English law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article needs some clarification and/or corrections.

  • There is no mentioning between foreseeability of a risk and the costs of prevention. Especially in the Jolley case, it is mentioned, that the Borough should have move the boat anyway, therefore there was no additional costs associated to the prevention of the highly remote risk that someone would jack up the boat and it would fall onto someone. In Wagon Mound (1) there is a similar argument in the other direction concerning the high costs preventing an oil spillage against the very remote risk that the oil could ignite
  • The reference to the eggshell skull rule is a little odd. The issue of the Smith v Leech Brain case is the fact that a tortfeasor must take the victims as they come. This means, foreseeability is restricted to the point if it is reasonably foreseeable that an injury of that kind may be caused by the negligence. The resulting severity of the injury need not be foreseeable.

Txwikinger 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)