PROBLEM STATEMENT (Tutorial 5) One Bonfire Night Guy lets off some home-made fireworks, which explode quite

unpredictably. One breaks the glass of Harry's greenhouse; it is a cold night, and Harry's collection of valuable tropical plants is killed by the frost. Idris's very nervous cat in the garden next door is driven mad by the noise and has to be put down. Does Guy owe Harry and Idris a duty of care? Answer: Clearly Guy does owe Harry and Idris a duty of care: they are neighbours in the Donoghue v Stevenson sense as well as literally. But what standard of care is he expected to meet? Answer: Yes, Guy's duty is that of a reasonable firework manufacturer. That is right. Making fireworks is a skilled and dangerous activity (which requires a licence from the Home Office), and the courts are unlikely to make any concessions to those who do it without adequate training and skill.

Guy owes Harry and Idris a duty of care, and he is clearly in breach of that duty. But for which of the various kinds of damage is Guy legally liable? Answer: Guy is legally liable only for the damage to the greenhouse. You may be right. Clearly he is liable for the damage to the greenhouse - it is foreseeable that home-made fireworks badly made will cause some property damage. But according to the Wagon Mound rule he is liable only for damage of a foreseeable type: the Privy Council ruled in that case that damage by fire was not the same type as damage by oil pollution, even though the property affected would have been the same. On that reasoning, it may be - it is not certain - that (unforeseen) damage by frost is not the same kind of damage as (foreseeable) damage by the fireworks themselves. As for the cat, it is well-known that animals suffer considerable fear and anxiety from fireworks nearby: can "going mad" be regarded as an extreme case of this form of damage, covered by the "eggshell skull" rule? That is not clear either.

Answer: Guy is legally liable for the damage to the greenhouse, the plants and the cat. You may be right. Clearly he is liable for the damage to the greenhouse - it is foreseeable that home-made fireworks badly made will cause some property damage. But according to the Wagon Mound rule he is liable only for damage of a foreseeable type: the Privy Council ruled in that case that damage by fire was not the same type as damage by oil pollution, even though the property affected would have been the same. On that reasoning, it may be - it is not certain - that (unforeseen) damage by frost is not the same kind of damage as (foreseeable) damage by the fireworks

themselves. As for the cat, it is well-known that animals suffer considerable fear and anxiety from fireworks nearby: can "going mad" be regarded as an extreme case of this form of damage, covered by the "eggshell skull" rule? That is not clear either. Answer: Guy is legally liable for the damage to the greenhouse and to the plants. You may be right. Clearly he is liable for the damage to the greenhouse - it is foreseeable that home-made fireworks badly made will cause some property damage. But according to the Wagon Mound rule he is liable only for damage of a foreseeable type: the Privy Council ruled in that case that damage by fire was not the same type as damage by oil pollution, even though the property affected would have been the same. On that reasoning, it may be - it is not certain - that (unforeseen) damage by frost is not the same kind of damage as (foreseeable) damage by the fireworks themselves. As for the cat, it is well-known that animals suffer considerable fear and anxiety from fireworks nearby: can "going mad" be regarded as an extreme case of this form of damage, covered by the "eggshell skull" rule? That is not clear either.

Answer: Guy is legally liable for the damage to the greenhouse and the cat, but not the plants. You may be right. Clearly he is liable for the damage to the greenhouse - it is foreseeable that home-made fireworks badly made will cause some property damage. As for the cat, it is well-known that animals suffer considerable fear and anxiety from fireworks nearby: can "going mad" be regarded as an extreme case of this form of damage, covered by the "eggshell skull" rule? That is not clear. But according to the Wagon Mound rule, Guy is liable only for damage of a foreseeable type: the Privy Council ruled in that case that damage by fire was not the same type as damage by oil pollution, even though the property affected would have been the same. On that reasoning, it may be - again it is not certain - that (unforeseen) damage by frost is not the same kind of damage as (foreseeable) damage by the fireworks themselves.

Summary Clearly Guy does owe Harry and Idris a duty of care: they are neighbours in the Donoghue v Stevenson sense as well as literally. And Guy's duty is that of a reasonable firework manufacturer: making fireworks is a skilled and dangerous activity (which requires a licence from the Home Office), and the courts are unlikely to make any concessions to those who do it without adequate training and skill. He has not come up to that standard, so he has been negligent. But for which of the three kinds of damage is Guy liable? Clearly he is liable for the damage to the greenhouse - it is foreseeable that home-made fireworks badly made will cause some property damage. But according to the Wagon Mound rule he is liable only for damage of a foreseeable type: the Privy Council ruled in that case that damage by fire was not the same type as damage by oil pollution, even though the property affected would have been the same. On that reasoning, it may be - it is not certain - that (unforeseen) damage by frost is not the same kind of damage as (foreseeable) damage by the fireworks themselves. As for the cat, it is well-known that animals suffer considerable fear and anxiety from fireworks nearby: can "going mad" be regarded as an extreme case of this form of damage, covered by the "eggshell skull" rule? That is not clear either. The damage to the plants and the cat may be "too remote" for him to be liable for those. Clearly Guy has been negligent, and is liable for the damaged greenhouse, but his liability for the plants and the cat is not completely clear: those particular kinds of damage may be "too remote" for him to be liable.