Date:
Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:22:42
From:
Andrew Tettenborn
Subject:
Remoteness in Intentional Torts
"Intentional
torts" can mean 2 things: (a) all torts apart from negligence, Rylands
v Fletcher, etc, and (b) any tort in so far as it involves
the deliberate wrongdoing, i.e. the defendant knowingly infringing
the plaintiff's rights.
Assuming
you mean (b), a couple of starting-points:
(1)
Quinn v Leathem [1901] AC 495, 537 ("The intention to injure
the plaintiff negatives all excuses and disposes of any question
of remoteness of damage"): see too the economic tort case of Ansett
v AFAP (No 2) [1991] 2 VR 636, 649, to the same effect. And
hence the rule in deceit: as Denning says in Doyle v Olby
[1969] 2 QB 158, it doesn't lie in a liar's mouth to say the consequences
of deceit are too remote.
(2)
Kuwait
Airways v Iraqi Airways [2002] 2 A.C. 883, 1027 et seq.
There Lord Nicholls, in the conversion context, says damage must
be foreseeable if the conversion is not knowingly wrongful, direct
if it is. This idea hasn't been extended elsewhere in tort yet,
but no doubt it will be.
Where
there's no element of outrageousness or deliberate wrongdoing, the
assumption is generally that remoteness rules OK. See, e.g., Lynch
v Knight (1861) 9 HLC 577 (defamation), Ministry of Defence
v Cannock [1995] 2 AER 449 (discrimination); Boxfoldia
[1988] IRLR 383, 388 (inducing breach of contract).
Andrew
>=====
Original Message From Jason Neyers =====
Dear
Colleagues:
On
the theme of remoteness: Does anyone know of any interesting discussions,
judicial or academic, of the remoteness rule/s for intentional
torts?
Andrew
Tettenborn
Bracton Professor of Law, University of Exeter, England
Snailmail:
Law
School
University of Exeter
Rennes Drive
Exeter EX4 4RJ
England
Tel:
01392-263189 (int +44-1392-263189)
Fax: 01392-263196 (int +44-1392-263196)
Cellphone: 07729-266200 (int +44-7729-266200)
Snailmail:
School
of Law
University of Exeter
Amory Building
Rennes Drive
Exeter EX4 4RJ
England
<<<<
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next
Message >>>>>
|