| 释义 |
remoteness of damage
The extent to which a defendant is liable for the consequences of his wrongful act or omission. In contract, the defendant compensates for damage only if this arises naturally from the breach and it was within his reasonable contemplation (Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341). He is presumed to have contemplated (and is therefore liable for) damage likely to result from the breach according to the usual course of events. Unusual damage resulting from special circumstances is regarded as within his contemplation only if a reasonable person, knowing what he knew or ought to have known, would have thought it liable to result. A second approach has developed that focuses on whether the parties at the moment of formation have assumed responsibility for the loss (The Achilleas [2008] UKHL 47). This approach should in principle only be applied if the approach in Hadley does not reflect the parties’ expectations or interests (Supershield Ltd v Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 7). In tort there is no single test to determine whether or not damage is too remote. In actions for negligence and other forms of liability based on fault, the defendant is responsible only for damage of the type he should have foreseen, but if damage of that type is foreseeable, it is no defence that the extent of the resulting damage is greater than could have been expected. In torts of strict liability, the defendant may be liable even for unforeseeable damage. Thus the keeper of an animal belonging to a dangerous species is liable for any damage it causes, whether foreseeable or not. |