WJEC A-Level Law 603-1978-1
Law Making in Wales and the UK
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Dispute Resolution
The Criminal Process and the Criminal Courts
Legal Personnel and the Judiciary
Access to Justice and Funding
Tort: Rules and Theory
Tort: Negligence
Tort: Occupiers' Liability
Tort: Remedies
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Key Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: RestrictionsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection and ReformHuman rights
Contract: Rules and TheoryContract
Contract: FormationContract
Contract: TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and DuressContract
Contract: DischargeContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Tort: Negligence
Remoteness of damage and the thin skull rule
- 3 things to know
- AS Unit 2
Overview
Test in The Wagon Mound, facts of The Wagon Mound and facts of Hughes v Lord Advocate.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
Which case established the modern test of remoteness?
State the test in The Wagon Mound.
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
What does remoteness of damage limit?
Model answer
The extent of the loss for which a defendant is liable, even where the breach caused it in fact.
- 2
Which case established the modern test of remoteness?
Model answer
The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961).
- 3
State the test in The Wagon Mound.
Model answer
The defendant is liable only for damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable.
- 4
What were the facts of The Wagon Mound?
Model answer
Oil was negligently discharged into a harbour and later ignited, damaging a wharf; fire damage was held not to be a foreseeable consequence of the spillage.
- 5
Which earlier test did The Wagon Mound replace?
Model answer
The direct consequences test, under which a defendant was liable for all damage flowing directly from the breach.
- 6
Does the precise manner of the harm have to be foreseeable?
Model answer
No; if damage of that type was foreseeable, it does not matter that it came about in an unforeseeable way.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Tort: Negligence, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.