Foreseeability Definition

GLOSSARY

Published by a ��Ƶ PI & Clinical Negligence expert

What does Foreseeability mean?

In order to recover damages, the claimant must prove that the injury or damage was reasonably foreseeable. If the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, the defendant will not be held responsible and the damage is said to be too remote.

View the related checklists about Foreseeability

Professional negligence claim—scope of duty, causation and remoteness—checklist

Professional negligence claim—scope of duty, causation and remoteness—checklist This Checklist identifies the key factors to consider when determining whether or not there is a viable claim to be brought in professional negligence in terms of the scope of the duty, causation and remoteness, when considering whether the losses claimed fall within the scope of the professional’s duty, using the ‘analysis model’ proposed by the Supreme Court in its 2021 decisions in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton and Khan v Meadows. For detailed guidance on causation and remoteness in this area, see Practice Note: Causation and remoteness in professional negligence claims. Note: in Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance, the Supreme Court rejected the application of this six-point checklist in used by the Court of Appeal when deciding whether the claimant car-hirer could recover damages she had had to pay to the car-hire company for loss of use owing to the car being damaged by a third party’s negligence—the case had not been one where the scope...

Brexit—contract clauses and resources—checklist [Archived]

Brexit—contract clauses and resources—checklist [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. It considers the potential consequences of Brexit and signposts resources to prepare contracts for Brexit in advance of IP completion day. For information on the impact of IP completion day on contracts and more generally on commercial law, see Practice Notes: What does IP completion day mean for contract clauses? and What does IP completion day mean for Commercial? This Checklist of contract clauses and resources sets out the potential consequences of Brexit and considers the impact on commercial contracts. It sets out the considerations which should be given to a contract and the contractual clauses or resources which may help. This Checklist can be used when assessing existing contractual arrangements that may require attention to ensure continuity of commercially viable relationships following exit day and when negotiating contracts that are required to be fit for purpose beyond the end of the implementation period. Key commercial resources Our Brexit contract management toolkit [Archived] provides an...

Brussels I (recast)—the harmful event (art 7(2))

Brussels I (recast)—the harmful event (art 7(2)) This Practice Note considers the requirement for a harmful event to enable a court to have special jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It then considers what is a harmful event when considering specific types of claims: economic loss, damaged or defective goods, personal injury claims, intellectual property claims, actions for inducing breach of contract as well as other types of claims. For guidance on the general principles that apply when dealing with tort and delict claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—tort and delict claims (art 7(2)). For guidance when dealing with contract claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—contract claims (Art 7(1)). Authorities Authorities for the construction and application of the wording in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which were decided either under Brussels I or the Brussels Convention will be applicable and are referred to in this Practice Note. This is because: • the wording of...

E&W Brussels I (recast)—multiple defendants (art 8) [Archived]

E&W Brussels I (recast)—multiple defendants (art 8) [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and the jurisdiction of the court when dealing with multiple defendants. The courts of an EU Member State have special jurisdiction to hear a dispute when a co-defendant is not domiciled in the jurisdiction if certain criteria are meet. This Practice Note considers the various criteria and how the courts have applied them in practice. In particular, it considers the meaning of ‘irreconcilable judgments’ and ‘anchor defendants’. The three other situations under Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) are considered in Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—third parties, counterclaims and rights in rem (art 8) [Archived]. Other special jurisdiction situations, in which the claimant is able to choose to bring proceedings in a different jurisdiction to that of the defendant's domicile, are found in: • Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012,...

Discover our 160 Practice Notes on Foreseeability

Letter of claim—a living mesothelioma claimant who was exposed to asbestos from the work clothes of a family member

Letter of claim—a living mesothelioma claimant who was exposed to asbestos from the work clothes of a family member Your ref:Our ref:Please ask for:Date:Direct Line:Email: Dear [insert organisation name] URGENT—LIVING MESOTHELIOMA CLAIMANT YOU MUST DEAL WITH THIS LETTER IMMEDIATELY Re: Our Client: Address: Date of Birth: National Insurance Number: Your Previous Employee: Date of Birth: Date of Death: National Insurance Number: Place of Work: We are instructed by our above named client in respect of a claim for damages due to personal injury in connection with exposure to asbestos, as a consequence of asbestos dust carried home on the work clothes of a family member, [insert relation eg husband, wife or parent and insert their name] while they were employed by [insert employer’s name] between [insert dates]. It is for this reason we are directing the claim to you. We are writing this letter in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Disease and Illness Claims. Please confirm the identity of your insurers. Please...

Particulars of claim for occupational stress caused by harassment at work

Particulars of claim for occupational stress caused by harassment at work IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert] claim No. [insert claim number] Between [Mr A B] Claimant -and- [C D PLC] Defendant __________________________________ Particulars of claim __________________________________ 1 At all material times, the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a mail sorter at its Islington office and acting in the course of his employment. The Claimant’s employment commenced on [insert date]. At all material times, the Claimant’s line manager was [insert name of Claimant’s line manager, eg Mr Bloggs]. [Mr Bloggs]’ line manager was [insert name, eg Mr Jones]. The Defendant’s Managing Director was [insert name, eg, Mr Smith]. 2 The Defendant owed the Claimant the following duties in tort and/or contract: 2.1 a duty to take reasonable care of the Claimant’s health and safety, which included employing competent fellow workers; and/or 2.2 a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the Claimant from suffering foreseeable psychiatric injury in the course of or as a result of...

Dive into our 2 Precedents related to Foreseeability

What obligations does an occupier of land have to a neighbour where Japanese knotweed has spread from their land to neighbouring land?

What obligations does an occupier of land have to a neighbour where Japanese knotweed has spread from their land to neighbouring land? An occupier of land could face liability for the spread of Japanese knotweed to neighbouring land in a number of ways, including: • under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981), which makes it an offence to plant or cause Japanese knotweed to grow • under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which imposes a duty of care on people dealing with controlled waste (Japanese knotweed), to take reasonable steps to keep that waste safe • through a claim for private for private nuisance For more information, see Practice Notes: Japanese knotweed—legal framework and Japanese knotweed—management, which also cover the amendments to the WCA 1981, added by the Infrastructure Act 2015, concerning Japanese knotweed and species control agreements and orders. Private nuisance This Q&A concerns the spread of Japanese knotweed to neighbouring land and so it involves a focus...

Where a leak into a neighbouring building has been ongoing for several years causing damage, but has only just been discovered, what is the limitation period for making a claim? How will that impact upon causation and relief/quantum as the nuisance and damage were latent?

Where a leak into a neighbouring building has been ongoing for several years causing damage, but has only just been discovered, what is the limitation period for making a claim? How will that impact upon causation and relief/quantum as the nuisance and damage were latent? Water leaks are often a cause of damage to property including adjoining properties, and may go unnoticed for months or years, after which time the damage may be considerably more serious than would have been the case had the leak been discovered promptly. As such, the neighbouring landowner who has suffered the damage may wish to bring a claim in nuisance and/or negligence for the damage caused by the leak. In nuisance, the liability is not a strict or absolute liability, a person not being liable unless they have continued or adopted the nuisance, or, more accurately, did not without undue delay remedy it when he became aware of it, or with ordinary and reasonable care should have become aware of it....

See the 21 Q&As about Foreseeability

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—31 October 2024

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes a High Court interim payment award of over £2m, a Court of Protection decision to release a Deputy from reverse indemnity undertakings and a case analysis where fundamental dishonesty was found not to apply to false imprisonment claims. We also bring you the newly released 2024 ONS annual survey for hours and earnings figures. In addition, we have our usual round up of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

Court of Justice rules on the interpretation of ‘overriding mandatory provisions’ under Article 16 of Regulation (EC) 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (ENI, YKI v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG)

EU Law analysis: The Court of Justice ruled on the interpretation of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, Rome II, arising out of a Bulgarian preliminary reference. The case involved Bulgarian citizens (ENI and YKI) who sought compensation from HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG (HUK-COBURG) (a German insurance company) for non-material damage arising out of their daughter’s death in a German road traffic accident. The Court of Justice determined that a Bulgarian national provision allowing compensation for non-material damage based on fairness cannot be considered an ‘overriding mandatory provision’ under Article 16 of Rome II, unless the legal situation has sufficiently close links with the forum state, and the national provision is of such importance to the national legal order that it justifies a departure from the law designated by the usual Article 4 of Rome II conflict rule. The decision emphasises the need for a restrictive interpretation of Article 16 to ensure legal certainty and balance between the interests of the liable party...

Read the latest 210 News articles on Foreseeability

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"Everything at Advocates is done on a timed basis, so we need to conduct our research efficiently. We don't want to charge clients unnecessarily or write off our time. With Lexis products, we can get more research done each day"

Advocates

Access all documents on Foreseeability

GET ACCESS NOW

Top

Trial

��Ƶ

GLOSSARY