The document summarizes four key cases related to negligence and foreseeability of damages: 1) Re Polemis - A shipowner sued a charterer after benzene leaked on board and was ignited by a spark, causing an explosion. The court held the charterer liable as the explosion was a direct consequence of their servant's negligence. 2) The Wagon Mound (No: 1) - Oil leaked from a ship and later ignited, destroying a nearby wharf. However, the court found the defendants not liable as the risk of fire could not have been foreseen. 3) Hughes v Lord Advocate - A man was injured after a lamp dropped into an unguarded manhole

1. Re Polemis (1921)
The chaterer of a ship
loaded benzine on
board the ship. The
benzine leaked
causing the bottom of
the deck fill with
vapour. A stevedore,
employed
By the chaterer
negligently droped a
Wooden plank into
the hold and causes a
spark which ignited
the vapour and the
ship exploded.The
owner of the ship sued
the chaterer on the
ground that the ship
exploded due to the
chaterer`s
servant(stevedore)
negligent. On the
other hand Chaterer
claimed that the
negligence of their
servant was too
remote to recovered
under
negligence.COA held
chaterer liable and
damage was not too
remote.D is liable if
the damage was the
direct consequences
of his negligence
The Wagon Mound
(No:l)
[1961]Privy Council
Due to the negligence of
defendant`s employees,
furnace oil leaked from
the defendant`s ship `The
Wagon Mound`the oild
discharged into Sydney
Harbour.The oil split
floated across the plaitif`s
wharf where welding was
taking place. The P
sought scientific advise as
to the likelihood of the oil
igniting during their
welding operations and
was assured no danger of
fire.P restarted their
operation. During the
operation, a metal droped
on the floating oil and
destroyed the P`s
wharf.Privy Council held
that defendants were not
liable for the destruction
of the wharf because they
could not have foreseen
the risk of damage by fire
Principle: The damage
must have been a
reasonably forseeable
consequences.
Hughes v Lord
Advocate [1963]
D opened a manhole in a
street and left covered
with only an erected tent
and some paraffin lamps
surrounding the
manhole.It was
unguarded.
An eight year old boy
dropped one of the lamps
in the hole which causes
explosion and he felt into
the hole and sustained
severe burn.D argued that
the explosion was too
remote to be forseen and
so not liable.HOL held D
had breach their duty to
safeguard P from the
explossion and D was
liable so long as injury by
burning was forseeable it
does not matter the
method by which the
burning occurred.
Chan Loo Khee v Lai
Siew Saw & Ors.
D left his car with its
parking lights on at the
side of the road. This
causes two approaching
cars collided. Majority
of Court held, that D
was not liable did not
create a substantial risk
of the collission.