Character of injury & sequence of events

in Rosenberg v Percival (140), Gummow J said: “A risk is real and foreseeable if it is not far-fetched or fanciful, even if it is extremely unlikely to occur. The precise and particular character of the injury or the precise sequence of events leading to the injury need not be foreseeable. It is sufficient if the kind or type of injury was foreseeable, even if the extent of the injury was greater than expected. Thus, in Hughes v Lord Advocate [[1963] AC 837], there was liability because injury by fire was foreseeable, even

though the explosion that actually occurred was not.”

quoted at [109] Tapp

Tapp @ [124]: The difficulty with the approach to characterisation of risk taken by

Basten and Payne JJA is that it required Ms Tapp to identify the risk by

reference to the precise manner in which her injuries were sustained.

That is inconsistent with the requirement deriving from s 5C(a) of the

Civil Liability Act.