Remoteness of damage must be reasonably foreseeable

- Defendant chartered a ship which had been spilling oil.

- Highly unlikely the oil would catch alight - Plaintiff was weilding

- however it did therefore causing fire damage to the plaintiffs wharf 

Held that this fire damage was not forseeable 

Only the type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable

- Contracted Weils Disease (caused by prolonged exposure to urine) 

- Weils disease is extremely rare on farms - and there was no evidence the farmers knew of the risk 

- Held that the claim fails 

Irrelevant how the damage occured 

- 9 yr old plaintiff climbed into an uncovered manhole to explore it 

- Picked up a parafin lamp to explore it 

-Plaintiff dropped the parafin lamp into the hole - where some background vapour ignited to causing bad burns 

- Despite the strange way the injury occured the damage was still given 

Thin skull rule applies 

- Claimant unknown to him had a pre malignant tumor on his lip 

- Molten metal hit his lip - creating a cancerous growth 

Defandents held liable for this additional injury 

Poverty of the claimant - is taken into account. Injury flowing from a plaintiff's inability to afford a less costly remedy must be covered by the defendant 

- Plaintiffs car was damages 

He could have paid for repairs but did not have the funds 

therefore he got a more expensive credit hire agreement 

-Defendant still had to pay for the ccredit hire agreement