principal of remoteness influences the “thin-skull”?

Watch this thread
Badges: 4
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
- thin-skull rule is an ‘extension of the foreseeability test’
- even if the injury or damage is unusual and more severe
that it could have been foreseen, due to vulnerability of the victim, defendant is still liable
- within the thin-skull rule case would be that the
principle of remoteness is used as a factor in order to determine how it affects possible other injuries and can be used to determine fault, liability and compensation
- However, other would argue that the both do not affect each other as thin-skull rule is based on ‘taking the victim as you find him” Whereas the principle of remoteness looks at a hypothetical reasonable man.
- thin-skull rule applies to conditions that arise after the injury whereas the principle of remoteness looks consequence at time of the accident occurred.
- The principle of remoteness is irrelevant in assessing the measure of physical harm?

I don't think these arguments make sense but if i could have some constructive criticism and suggestion it would greatly appreciate.
Last edited by 13JAthwal; 1 year ago

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
new posts
to top
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.


Has advance information helped during your exams?

Yes (68)
No (26)
I didn't use it to prepare (9)

Watched Threads

View All