Remoteness of damage
In negligence a defendant is only liable for damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable; harm that is too remote — an unforeseeable type of damage — is not recoverable even if it was factually caused.
Last reviewed 14 June 2026
The test was set in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) (No 1) [1961] AC 388, replacing the older “directness” test in Re Polemis. Only the type of harm need be foreseeable, not its precise extent or the exact way it came about.
Once a foreseeable type of injury occurs, the “thin skull” rule applies: the defendant takes the victim as they find them, so the full extent of the harm is recoverable (Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405).
Key cases
- Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961] AC 388
- Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560
- Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405
Frequently asked questions
What is the test for remoteness of damage in negligence?
Reasonable foreseeability of the type of damage (The Wagon Mound No 1). Harm of an unforeseeable kind is too remote and not recoverable.
What is the thin skull rule?
Where a foreseeable type of harm occurs, the defendant is liable for its full extent even if a pre-existing vulnerability made the consequences worse (Smith v Leech Brain).