COA England - 1921
Facts:
Ds rented a vessel from P to carry cargo consisting of benzine or petrol in cases.
A heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel.
Ps sued D in negligence for the cost of the vessel.
Procedural History:
Lower court found for P.
COA affirmed.
Issues:
If the negligent act might cause damage but is of a different kind than what one would expect, is D liable for this damage?
Holding/Rule:
If the D's act would or might probably cause damage, the fact that the damage it causes is not the exact kind of damage one would expect is immaterial, as long as the damage is in fact directly traceable to the negligent act, and not due to the operation of independent causes.
The fact that the exact operation of the damage was not foreseen is not material if the negligence would probably cause damage and the harm was the direct result of the negligent act.
Reasoning:
The damages claimed are not too remote.
The damage was a direct result of the negligence of the Ds.
Consequences which follow in unbroken sequence, without an intervening efficient cause, from the original negligent act are natural and proximate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Networking Can Be An Ethical Landmine. Be Careful.
By Roy Ginsburg on Nov 10, 2011 Done right, networking is essential for growth; Done wrong, networking can be unethical For solo l...
-
What is 'Greenmail' Greenmail is the practice of buying a voting stake in a company with the threat of a hostile takeover to force ...
-
What are the Personal Injury Actions of Contribution and Indemnity? Contribution and indemnity are two ways in which a defendant (the per...
-
OVERVIEW: Latin for "that you have the body." In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to dete...
No comments:
Post a Comment