damage is 'remote'?Watch
(1) Was the defendant's breach of duty the factual cause of the claimant's loss?
(2) Was the defendant's breach of duty the legal cause of the claimant's loss?
Legal causation consists of both remoteness and novus actus. There are certain damages which are too remote and in such an instance the law will not impose liability because the individual at breach could not have foreseen the type of injury suffered.
The classic case is: Wagon Mound (No 1)
Look also at the following:
Doughty v Turner
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Note, Ken Oliphant thinks the correct approach is the Hughes Approach.
It is a test of foreseeability - foreseeability in relation to the type of harm suffered, not the extent suffered. Under the egg shell rule (Brice v Brown) as long as some form of the type of injury is foreseeable, all loss of that type will be recoverable.