As the rules on remoteness of damage are presently set out, there appears to be a distinction between contract actions and those framed in tort. However, it should be appreciated that the major cases on remoteness in actions for breach of contract all concern economic loss. Accordingly, the question arises whether there should be a different test of remoteness where the damage complained of as a result of the defendant’s breach of contract comprises physical harm to the person or to property. It is possible that a defendant may find him/herself liable to one person for a breach of contract giving rise to physical harm and to another person due to a breach of tortious duty. For example, the manufacturer of a defective product, the occupier of premises or a doctor may all find themselves in this position. The defendant may also be concurrently liable for physical damage to a claimant in both contract and tort. It has been seen that there is no liability for abnormal financial losses, unless the defendant has been informed of special circumstances likely to give rise to those losses. However, there would appear to be no reason for this rule to apply to cases of physical damage. While a party to a contract might think of possible financial losses before making the contract, he is much less likely to contemplate the possibility of physical harm. The typical view is that, in tort cases, there is no opportunity for the injured party to protect himself. However, this is not strictly true as, in many tort cases, the parties are known to each other and may even be in a contractual relationship. A better view is probably that physical harm is not something which any contracting party is likely to contemplate, and that losses of this sort should be recoverable, so long as the harm suffered is not too remote. It would seem to follow that there is little justification for applying separate tests of remoteness in tortious and contractual actions for physical damage. In Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd, the plaintiffs were pig

DOI link for As the rules on remoteness of damage are presently set out, there appears to be a distinction between contract actions and those framed in tort. However, it should be appreciated that the major cases on remoteness in actions for breach of contract all concern economic loss. Accordingly, the question arises whether there should be a different test of remoteness where the damage complained of as a result of the defendant’s breach of contract comprises physical harm to the person or to property. It is possible that a defendant may find him/herself liable to one person for a breach of contract giving rise to physical harm and to another person due to a breach of tortious duty. For example, the manufacturer of a defective product, the occupier of premises or a doctor may all find themselves in this position. The defendant may also be concurrently liable for physical damage to a claimant in both contract and tort. It has been seen that there is no liability for abnormal financial losses, unless the defendant has been informed of special circumstances likely to give rise to those losses. However, there would appear to be no reason for this rule to apply to cases of physical damage. While a party to a contract might think of possible financial losses before making the contract, he is much less likely to contemplate the possibility of physical harm. The typical view is that, in tort cases, there is no opportunity for the injured party to protect himself. However, this is not strictly true as, in many tort cases, the parties are known to each other and may even be in a contractual relationship. A better view is probably that physical harm is not something which any contracting party is likely to contemplate, and that losses of this sort should be recoverable, so long as the harm suffered is not too remote. It would seem to follow that there is little justification for applying separate tests of remoteness in tortious and contractual actions for physical damage. In Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd, the plaintiffs were pig

As the rules on remoteness of damage are presently set out, there appears to be a distinction between contract actions and those framed in tort. However, it should be appreciated that the major cases on remoteness in actions for breach of contract all concern economic loss. Accordingly, the question arises whether there should be a different test of remoteness where the damage complained of as a result of the defendant’s breach of contract comprises physical harm to the person or to property. It is possible that a defendant may find him/herself liable to one person for a breach of contract giving rise to physical harm and to another person due to a breach of tortious duty. For example, the manufacturer of a defective product, the occupier of premises or a doctor may all find themselves in this position. The defendant may also be concurrently liable for physical damage to a claimant in both contract and tort. It has been seen that there is no liability for abnormal financial losses, unless the defendant has been informed of special circumstances likely to give rise to those losses. However, there would appear to be no reason for this rule to apply to cases of physical damage. While a party to a contract might think of possible financial losses before making the contract, he is much less likely to contemplate the possibility of physical harm. The typical view is that, in tort cases, there is no opportunity for the injured party to protect himself. However, this is not strictly true as, in many tort cases, the parties are known to each other and may even be in a contractual relationship. A better view is probably that physical harm is not something which any contracting party is likely to contemplate, and that losses of this sort should be recoverable, so long as the harm suffered is not too remote. It would seem to follow that there is little justification for applying separate tests of remoteness in tortious and contractual actions for physical damage. In Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd, the plaintiffs were pig