⇒ A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote

⇒Historical position on remoteness: Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921]

⇒The current law on remoteness: Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961]

• In essence, the position is that the defendant will only be liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable

⇒ Numerous cases have followed the principle in The Wagon Mound that a harm suffered by the claimant must be of a kind, type, or class that was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant's negligence

⇒ See, for example, Bradford v Robinson Rentals [1967], where it was said that as the claimant suffered an injury that was similar to the kinds of damages to be expected from the defendants' action, they could be found liable

⇒ However, notwithstanding the apparent simplicity for the remoteness of damage, there has been some uncertainty as to how wide the category of ‘kind of damage’ should be viewed/defined:

• See, for example, Tremain v Pike [1969]

⇒ Since the Wagon Mound case, the courts have frequently reiterated that the defendant may be liable even where he/she could not envisage the precise set of circumstances which caused the harm of a foreseeable type. In other words, if it is foreseeable that the claimant will suffer a particular injury (e.g. a burn), then even if the circumstances in which the claimant got that injury are not foreseeable, it will not matter and the defendant will be liable

• See, for example, Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]
• Parsons v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd. [1978]
• Page v Smith [1996]

⇒ The egg shell skull principle is the principle that makes a defendant liable for the claimant's unfortunate and uncommon reaction to the defendant's negligent/intentional tort.

⇒ See the cases of Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. [1962], Robinson v Post Office [1974] , and Page v Smith [1996]

⇒ It may be possible that a third party intervenes in such a way that breaks the defendant's causation of the claimant's injury

⇒ Natural or ‘instinctive’ interventions by a third party

• See the cases of The Oropesa [1949] and Scott v Shepherd [1773]

⇒ Negligent Interventions by a third party

• See the cases of Knightly v Johns [1982] and Hogan v Bentinck West Hartley Collieries (Owners) Ltd. [1949]

⇒ Intentional intervention by a third party

• See the cases of Lamb v Camden [1981]

⇒ Intervening act of the claimant him/herself

• See the cases of McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. [1969]