Remoteness and Defences
Remoteness
The defendant is liable only for damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable. The precise manner or extent of the harm need not be foreseeable, and the 'eggshell skull' rule means a defendant takes the victim as found, including unusual vulnerability. Questions often test whether the type of damage (physical injury, psychiatric illness, property damage) was foreseeable, not whether the exact sequence of events was. A foreseeable kind of harm caused in an unforeseeable way still attracts liability.
Contributory negligence
Where the claimant's own fault contributed to the damage, damages are reduced to the extent the court thinks just and equitable. The reduction can be substantial. The claimant need not have breached a duty to themselves; a failure to take reasonable care for their own safety suffices. Questions test whether the claimant's conduct was a contributing cause, not merely a background condition.
Volenti and illegality
Voluntary assumption of risk requires knowledge of the precise risk and a free, informed consent to it. It is a complete defence but rarely succeeds. Illegality (ex turpi causa) may bar a claim where the claimant must rely on their own criminal act, but courts apply it narrowly and proportionately.
Other defences
Consent, necessity and statutory authority may arise. Limitation periods can bar stale claims.
Worked rule of thumb
Ask two questions: was the kind of harm foreseeable, and did the claimant's own carelessness contribute? A claimant who accepts a lift from a drunk driver may be contributorily negligent but is unlikely to have assumed the risk voluntarily. A defendant who negligently starts a fire is liable for the spread to neighbouring property even if the exact path of the flames was unforeseeable.
Traps
Do not confuse contributory negligence with volenti: one reduces damages, the other bars the claim entirely. Remoteness is about kind of damage, not degree.