After a separation of issues, the High Court determined that the haulier was liable in damages to the toll company for its loss.
They proceeded from the premise that negligent conduct which manifested itself in the form of a positive act, causing physical damage to the property or person of another, was prima facie wrongful.
In contrast, negligent causation of pure economic loss was not regarded as prima facie wrongful.
[4] In a case like the present, where the claim for pure economic loss fell outside the ambit of any recognised category of liability, the first step was to identify the considerations of policy that were of relevance.
The court would more readily impose liability where, as in the present case, the loss claimed was suffered by a single plaintiff, and was finite in extent, than where it would open the door to a multiplicity of actions.
[10] The court held further that the test for determining remoteness of damage (under the rubric of legal causation) was a flexible one.
That meant that the existing criteria of foreseeability, directness, etcetera, should not be applied dogmatically, but in a flexible manner, so as to avoid a result which was so unfair or unjust that it was regarded as untenable.