First Principles of Business Law

6. Causation

6.3.3. Unforeseeable harm caused

So far in this section, it has been shown that a defendant is liable for harm caused if that harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of breaching the duty of care owed. But what happens when harm of one kind is reasonably foreseeable, but the harm that actually occurs is of a different kind and not foreseeable? Read the facts below and then answer the question.

A, a chemical manufacturer, fails to clean her transport tanks properly. The result is that a chemical product, XB3, delivered to B is contaminated with a small amount of another chemical (PZ9). An experienced chemist would know that such contamination might make XB3 poisonous, but not that the contamination would make XB3 explosive when compressed. B suffers harm when the XB3 explodes during an application process involving high pressures. A argues that, although harm due to poisoning was reasonably foreseeable, the harm that occurred was of a different kind that was not foreseeable. A therefore argues that she should not be liable to B.  Is A's argument correct?