Oil was negligently spilled into a harbour and later caught fire, damaging the claimant's wharf. Expert evidence showed that fire damage was not reasonably foreseeable, although fouling of the wharf by oil was. In The Wagon Mound (No 1), what was the result?

Correct answer: C) The defendant was not liable for the fire damage because that type of damage was not reasonably foreseeable

Explanation

The Wagon Mound (No 1) rejected the direct consequences test from Re Polemis and held that a defendant is liable only for damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable. Since fire damage was not foreseeable, it was too remote. Provided the type of harm is foreseeable, the precise manner or extent need not be (Hughes v Lord Advocate; Smith v Leech Brain).