Question

Test of directness for determining remoteness of damage was laid down in:

• A. Wagon Mound 1
• B. Wagon Mound 2
• C. Re Polemis
• D. Rylands v. Fletcher

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The Correct Option is (C): Re Polemis.

Answer 2

This question is about the two competing tests English law has used to decide how far down the chain of consequences a negligent defendant remains liable, the directness test and the reasonable foreseeability test.

1. Wagon Mound 1: in this 1961 Privy Council decision, the directness test from Re Polemis was overruled, and the court replaced it with the test of reasonable foreseeability, a defendant is only liable for damage of a kind that a reasonable person could have foreseen. This case moved away from directness, it did not lay it down.
2. Wagon Mound 2: this later case refined the foreseeability test further, clarifying that even a small but real risk of damage that a reasonable person would not brush aside can be enough for liability, it continues to build on foreseeability, not directness.
3. Re Polemis: in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co. Ltd. (1921), the Court of Appeal held that a negligent defendant is liable for all the direct consequences of the negligent act, whether or not those consequences were reasonably foreseeable, so long as they flowed directly from the wrongful act without any new intervening cause. This is exactly the directness test the question is asking about.
4. Rylands v. Fletcher: this case is about strict liability for the escape of dangerous things from land, it has nothing to do with the test for remoteness of damage in negligence.

Since Re Polemis is the case that specifically formulated liability based on directness of consequence, rather than foreseeability, option (C) is correct.

So, the correct answer is Re Polemis.