The document discusses the legal principles of foreseeability and novus actus interveniens in tort law. It provides examples of cases where: 1) The defendant was found liable because the type of damage was reasonably foreseeable, even if the extent was not (e.g. Wagon Mound I). 2) Intervening acts by the plaintiff or third parties may absolve the defendant of liability, unless their acts were foreseeable consequences of the defendant's negligence (e.g. McKew v Holland). 3) Natural or non-negligent intervening events will break the chain of causation and liability (e.g. Carslogie Steamship).

1. The Wagon Mound I (1961) PC
The damage must have been a reasonable
foreseeable consequences.
(Followed by M`sian Court)
Once P established that a particular kind of
damage is foreseeable it is enough.
It doesn’t matter whether the extent of the injury
or its manner how it occur is foreseeable or not.
Hughes v Lord Advocate
But this rule was not followed in Doughty v
Turner Mfg.(Both must have been foreseen)
Estensive Damage
As long as the tyype of damage is
foreseen,it does not matter that its
severity could not been foreseen.
Bradford v Robinson
Rentals(frosbite was unforeseen
but the exposure r.foreseen may
cause injury .D Liable.
Egg Shell Skull Rule & Thin
Skull Rule
The defendant must take his
victim as he finds him.
Smith v Leech Brain Co.(lips
burn due to D`s negl.
Subseq.cause canser and
died.D liable.
Robinson v Post office.
Impecuniosity
The initial damage inflicted by D may
aggravated P due to his financial
disability. Whether P can claim or not?
The Liesbosch
It was held not claimable because it is
too remote and unforeseen. The law
does not cover to that extent.
Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd. V
Canterbury City Council
The ct allow claim from date of trial and
not from date of damage becox of it is
foreseeable)
Novus Actus Interveniens
Damages occuring after novus actus interveniens
is regarded as too remote. Chain of causation
breaks.
There are 3 types.
Intervening act of Plaintiff
If the conduct of P has amounted to a
novus actus interveniens then D is not
liable.
Mc Kew v Holland & Hannen &
Cubitts(Unreasonable act of P putting
himself under emergency which cause
him unjury.D not liable.
Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpet( the
second injury was foreseen as result of
first injury. Not novus actus. D liable.)
If P and D contributed to P`s injury then
contributory negligence
Intervening act by Third Party
Gr. where defendant`s negligence was
followed by the act of 3rd
party causing
further damage to P then D is not liable
if he can prove that the intervening act
cause by 3rd
party.
If (Dl) `s negligence is reasonably
foreseeable that it may cause the third
party to act negligently the (D1) is
liable.
Stansbie v Troman
Home Office v Dorset Yacht
But Lamb v London Borough of
Camden gave alternative view.If
damage is unforeseen consequences
of D`s negligence then D is not liable.
Novus actus due
to Natural Event
D not liable.
Carslogie Steamship v
Royal Norwegian Govt.
Suicide cases
If P could not stand initial injury and
commit suicide.Dl still liable.Kirkham v
Chief Const.of Greater Manchester
Police.