51.   In Polemis some damage was foreseeable as a result of the plank being dropped.

52.   Damage by explosion was probably not a foreseeable kind of damage.

53.   The defendants argued that they were not liable, as the way in which the damage came about was not foreseeable and the damage was therefore too remote.

54.   The damage was therefore not too remote.

55.   Damage by eruption was not foreseeable in the circumstances but damage by splashing was.

56.   Some property damage was foreseeable and the fact that it was more extensive than might have been foreseen did not matter.

57.   Broadly speaking, provided the plaintiff can establish that personal injury was reasonably foreseeable as a real risk, the damage is not too remote.

58.   Factual causation was established and the damage was not too remote.

59.   Two judges in the House of Lords thought that the damage was consequential, not direct, and therefore not capable of constituting a trespass.

60.   Its wings were folded when the building collapsed and so the damage is mostly to the wing tips.