- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Hepworth v Kerr (1995)-Remoteness of Damage
Core Principle: Damage must not be too remote; the type of harm must be reasonably foreseeable.
I. Case Facts:
Core Principle: Damage must not be too remote; the type of harm must be reasonably foreseeable.
I. Case Facts:
- Defendant: Anaesthetist employing experimental induced hypotension.
- Plaintiff: Patient undergoing anaesthesia.
- Injury: Spinal stroke (damage to spinal cord due to reduced blood supply).
- Key Knowledge: Risk of cerebral stroke was known; risk of spinal stroke was unknown.
- Was the spinal stroke a reasonably foreseeable type of damage arising from the defendant's negligence?
- Defendant liable.
- Reasoning:
- While a spinal stroke specifically was not foreseeable, injury from under-perfusion of a major organ was foreseeable.
- The spinal stroke fell within the type of foreseeable harm (under-perfusion injury).
- Therefore, the damage was not too remote.
- Focus on the Type of Harm: Foreseeability does not require predicting the precise injury, but rather the general type of injury.
- Broad Interpretation of "Type": The court adopted a relatively broad definition of "type" of harm. As long as the ultimate injury falls within that broad category, liability can be established.
- Application to Negligence: When assessing remoteness in negligence claims, identify the foreseeable type of harm stemming from the negligent act and determine if the actual harm falls within that type.
0 Comments