- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
- Posts
Sir what is the difference between sufficient proximity/relation exist and loss is foreseeable?
You could be sufficiently proximate but there is no loss involved
For example, it could be argued that I am your legal neighbour but given that you are not likely to suffer loss as a result of my actions and our proximity, then there is no cause for action
Equally, there could be reasonably foreseeable loss involved when I observe you a third party taking action that I consider ill-advised but if we’re not legal neighbours then there’s no cause for action against me
OK?
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
- The topic ‘Difference’ is closed to new replies.