- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
- Posts
I do not quite understand ‘The loss suffered because of negligent, must not be too remote to be claimed”
How do u define ‘remote’ area?
Thank you.What I understand is the remote does not refer to location or proximitiy but that the loss must be reasonably foreseeable meaning that in order for a claim in negligence to be successful (to be considered by the court) the defendant should have been able to reasonably (always!) to foresee it to be able to prevent it.
I remember a case (but not its name) where due to an accident as a result of the defendant negligence a woman who was pregnant saw the accident and was so upset that she suffered illness and loss her baby (I think) but the defendant was not liable of her injury as he could not foresee that she would pass by and be ill because of the sight to the accident, therefore it was too remote. Not sure if you know what I mean. At last hope it can help.All the best.
Hi
Alua is virtually correct. Remoteness (also called “proximity” and “neighbourhood test”) means that there should be sufficient proximity of the injured party to the party alleged to have committed the tort. “Neighbours” are “those people who are so directly affected by your acts that you should have had them in mind as likely to be so affected when you committed those acts”
This is from google! For duty of care claims involving damage as regards to physical injury, the basis of the current approach was summed up in the key case of Caparo v Dickman. The formal requirements that now must be satisfied before a duty of care is held to exist are; i) forseeabilty of damage ii) a sufficiently ‘proximate’ relationship between the parties; and iii) even where (a) and (b) are satisfied it must be ‘just and reasonable’ to impose a duty.
The concept of forseeabilty, i.e., what a hypothetical ‘reasonable man’ would have foreseen in the circumstances, is ubiquitous in the tort of negligence. It is the foundation of the neighbour principle, but is also used as a test of breach of duty and remoteness of damage. The loss must be foreseeable as a ‘possibility’.’Proximity’ is usually used as shorthand for the neighbour principle. This refers to legal not physical proximity. Physical proximity may be relevant in deciding whether the parties should be treated as ‘neighbours’ in law, as in Home office v Dorset Yacht Co.Ltd, but it is not an essential requirement.
Read more: Tort of Negligence Damage and Injury | Free Tort Law Essay | Law Teacher https://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/essays/negligence-damage-injury-tort-law.php#ixzz2VeMgjkPu
Follow us: @lawteachernet on Twitter | LawTeacherNet on Facebook
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.