Talk:Remoteness in English law

This article needs some clarification and/or corrections.

There is no mentioning between foreseeability of a risk and the costs of prevention. Especially in the Jolley case, it is mentioned, that the Borough should have move the boat anyway, therefore there was no additional costs associated to the prevention of the highly remote risk that someone would jack up the boat and it would fall onto someone. In Wagon Mound (1) there is a similar argument in the other direction concerning the high costs preventing an oil spillage against the very remote risk that the oil could ignite

The reference to the eggshell skull rule is a little odd. The issue of the Smith v Leech Brain case is the fact that a tortfeasor must take the victims as they come. This means, foreseeability is restricted to the point if it is reasonably foreseeable that an injury of that kind may be caused by the negligence. The resulting severity of the injury need not be foreseeable.