Discuss the extent to which the rules on causation and remoteness of damage are fair to both parties

An examination of the principles of causation shows that the principles are about making the defendant responsible for all foreseeable loss that he or she has caused.

Grade: A-C | £3.99.

This essay explains the law of causation in tort.

This explanation also mentions causation in fact and causation in law.

The 'but for' test as applied by Lord Denning in Cork v Kirby Maclean Ltd (1952) is also covered.

The essay then goes on to discuss the problems of complex cases and where there are multiple causes.

The essay illustrates points by the use of a number of leading cases including: Cutler v Vauxhall Motors ( 1970); Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988); McGhee v National Coal Board (1972);Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (2002); Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982); Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Navy (1952) and others.

The matter of a causal link is also discussed as well as the chain of causation and any new or intervening act (novus actus interveniens).

The essay also contains a full description of the law of remoteness of damage which is illustrated by such cases as Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co (1921); Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961); Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967); Wagon Mound (No 2) (1967).

The essay then concludes with a full discussion about the fairness of the rules on causation and remoteness to both parties. This discussion is also illustrated by reference to relevant cases such as Doughty v Tuner Manufacturing; Tremain v Pike and Jolley v London Borough of Sutton.

 There is sufficient scope for you to adapt or develop according to your individual needs.




(Word count 2648)




Related Items

The items below list this Essay as being related in some way.


There are no related tags.

Amazon's recommended Books

RSS Feeds