REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES

IN TORT WITH APPROPRIATE

ILLUSTRAITION AND CASE LAW
SINGH PRACHI RAVINDRA
B/23
NEHA MA’AM
 INDEX

SR.NO PAGE NO
TOPICS

1. INTRODUCTION/MEANING/ CAUSATION
AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES:

2. ELOBORATION OF FEW CASES

ILLUSTRATIONS RELATED REMOTENESS

3. OF DAMAGES

4. CASE LAW / CITATIONS

INTRODUCTION:
There are many remedies which are available to the injured person and the most
common remedy is the award of damages. Damages are that amount of money which the injured person
gets from the person who caused injury to him. Remoteness of damages is an interesting principle. Once the
damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and
what factor determines it.

The principle of remoteness of damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can
constitute of single consequence i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damages may be proximate or might be
remote, or too remote.

MEANING:
According to the law, the harm must be immediate and an obvious effect of the defendant’s
actions. If not, the plaintiff will not be successful. This is a close-proximity cause and effect in law in the law
the immediate, not the remote cause of any event that is to be considered. This is due to the presumption
that the defendant did not intend the distant damage but rather the natural consequences.

The act of the defendant must therefore be the cause, or the proximate cause. New Acts of Intervention, The
act and its consequences must be linked directly, and the defendant will not be held liable for Novus actus
intervenes and its consequences.

CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES:

A person cannot be liable for damages for failure to take
care to prevent personal injury or death unless negligent conduction his or her part whether act or omission
caused the harm, and unless that harm was not too ‘remote’ from the negligent conduct.

The term remoteness refers to the legal test of causation which is used when determining the types of loss
caused by breach of duty which may be compensated by a damages award.

Causation covers causation in fact as adapted by further principles which place limits on what is
characterized as cause at law, legal causation. The principles of remoteness required that the loss must be
such that it was or is deemed to have been, in the contemplation of the parties.
A few case elaborations help clarify things.

(1)Scott v. Shepherd:
‘A’ threw a lit squib into a crowd, and it landed on ‘X’. X did the same thing to avoid injury
to him, and it fell on Y. Y then did the same thing, and it fell on B, causing him to lose one of his eyes. A was
held accountable to B, His act was the proximate cause of damage, despite the fact that his act was the
furthest away from the damage due to the intervening act X and Y.

(2) Harwood v. Haynes:

A house van was left unattended in a crowded street by the defendant’s servants. A
child threw stones at the horses, causing them to flee, and a police officer was injured while attempting to
stop them in order to rescue the women and children on the road.

One of the defendant’s defenses was remoteness of consequences, which stated that the child’s misbehavior
was the proximate cause and the servant’s negligence was a remote cause.

(3) ARUN MILLS LTD V/S DHANRAJMAL GOBINDRAM:

It was stated with regard to remoteness of
loss, until recently it could fairly be said that, subject to the decision in. The Paraná, the law on the
remoteness of damage in Tort has been codified.

*GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
The general principle requires a plaintiff to give greater consideration to the
possibility of specific damages than the corresponding general in tort law. A much higher degree of
predictability is required when concluding contracts. H is significant likelihood of Harm or Actual Harm. As a
result, contract can reduce damages more than torts. In H persons Ltd the defendant failed to ensure that
the feed supplied to the plaintiff was properly aerated, resulting in the death of several of the plaintiff pigs.
The above test for contractual damages was consider satisfied, as it may have taken into account the
significant likelihood that the pigs would become ill. This difference is justified, firstly, because plaintiffs can
claim higher liability in special circumstances by giving notice at the same time the contracts is concluded.
Second, such notice enables the defaulting party to take steps to protect it from such damages. This can be
agreed with the plaintiff by increasing the price or including protective measures in the contract.
ILLUSTRATIONS RELATED REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES:

A person is driving down the road when he hits a girl on the footpath, the girl falls on a bicycle breaks her
finger, the bicycle man loses his balance and gets in front of a fuel tanker steers left to save the man on the
bicycle but unfortunately hits the railing to a river bridge and falls into it, the lock on the fuel tank breaks and
the driver drowns.

In the above case:

The girl being hit is the direct damage, and it is caused by A’s action. The girl’s falls is directly responsible for
the cyclist’s injuries are caused directly by the girl’s fall and are unrelated to A’s action.

The truck driver’s injury and material loss fuel and fuel tank are remote cause from A’s action but close to
the cyclist’s act. It should be noted that liability for the negligence is based on the assumption that the
person is aware that rash driving can result in fatalities. However, the expected the actual results may differ.

The starting point of any rule of the remoteness of damages. It would be unjust to hold every Tortfeasor
accountable for all of the consequences he has caused.

Certainly, a mathematically precise formula cannot answer the question of where to draw line on
recoverability of consequential losses. Judges have exercised their discretion on occasion, and two formulas
have been highlighted.

*The Test of Reasonable Foresight.

IF a reasonable person could foresee the consequences of a wrongdoing, they are not too far away. If, on
the other hand, a reasonable person could not have predicted the consequences, they are not too distant,
and, an individual is only liable for consequences that are not too far away, i.e. that can be predicted.

If on the other hand, reasonable person could have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote,
and, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be
foreseen.

*The Test of Directness.

According to the directness test, a person is liable for all of the direct consequences of his wrong full act,
whether he could foresee them or not; because the consequences that directly follow a wrongful act are not
too remote.
CASE Law: (1) Commissioner, Corporation v/s Dr. N.A. Narayanaswamy 2001

Bench: K S Rao

FACTS: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

The appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore in O.S. No. 5422 of 1988. The appellants 1 and 2 are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The 3rd defendant in
the suit is placed exparte and he has been impleaded as 2nd respondent in this appeal. The first respondent/plaintiff
filed suit claiming damages in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- In that regard, the Corporation also took necessary steps by
initiating proceedings and entrusting the job of cutting the tree to the 2nd respondent herein.

During the course of the cutting of the tree, it is said that a huge branch of the tree fell on the car of the
plaintiff/respondent resulting in damage to the car to an extent of 1,50,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff has claimed
damages with interest and costs.

The appellant-Corporation in the written statement, took up the plea that the Corporation is not responsible for the
accident and that the 2nd respondent, who was the contractor, entrusted with the job of cutting the tree, alone should
be held responsible, in causing damage to the plaintiffs car. The Trial Court on the consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence decreed the suit directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,24,500/- with interest at 10%
p.a. from the date of the suit till realisation. Being aggrieved, the present suit is filed.

After going through the said decision, I find that on facts, the ratio laid down in the decision is not applicable to the
facts on hand. The situation in the present case is not an accidental fall of a tree. In the course of removal of the tree
by cutting the branch of the tree fallen on the car causing damage. Therefore, it is a case of negligent manner of
cutting and removal of the tree by the third respondent

ISSUSES:

Damage caused to his car by negligent felling of a tree on 18-5-1988 near Kidwai Hospital, Bangalore. The
undisputed facts of the case disclose that in front of Kidwai Hospital there was a huge tree, which was almost decayed
and was posing threat to the passers by. Besides, the Corporation was contemplating the widening of the road, Kidwai
Hospital authorities requested the Corporation to take effective steps for cutting and removal of the tree.

JUDGEMENT:

ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO 8-8-2001 The Counsel for the appellant submitted that whole
of the decrial amount including the interest has been deposited at the time of admission of appeal and it is
requested that part of the interest refundable from the deposited amount be directed to be payable. The
Counsel for the respondents has no objection for the request. Accordingly, the request is allowed. The excess
of interest as per the decree collected by the respondent is to be refunded.

Liable to be sued for tort of negligence since the causation is too remote. Novas actus inconveniences
causation for accident is too remote.
 (2) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERELA V/S DEEPTI SINGH 2019
FACTS SUPREME COURT
A consumer complaint in regard to an alleged deficiency of service of the Kerala 1 “National
Commission” Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. 2 was instituted by Ms Deepti Singh for and on behalf
of herself and her two minor children.

The complainants had booked accommodation at Hotel Samudra at Kovalam for a family holiday. On 21
March 2006 between 6.30 and 7 p.m., Satyendra Pratap Singh, the spouse of the first complainant and father
of the two minor children entered the swimming pool of the hotel with his brother. Other guests of the hotel
were present in the pool at that time.

The incident is not in dispute. However, according to KTDC, the lifeguard on duty also jumped into the
swimming pool. The victim was pulled out of the water and was taken to hospital. He died at 9.30 p.m. on
the same day. 4 A First Information Report3 was lodged at about 2 p.m. on 22 March 2006 at the Medical
College Police Station. Eventually, a complaint was filed before the NCDRC. The NCDRC placed reliance on

ISSUES:
Satyendra Pratap Singh became unconscious and sank into the pool. It was alleged by the complainants that
on witnessing the incident, a foreigner who was in the vicinity in the pool lifted him out of the water.

A deficiency of service on the part of the management of the hotel, primarily for the reason that the
lifeguard on duty had also been assigned the task of being a Bartender

Safety guidelines for water sports issued by the National Institute of Water Sports, Ministry of Tourism,
Government of India. Insofar as they are material and as extracted in the impugned order of the NCDRC, the
instructions

JUDGEMENT: Justice Ramaswamy

The elements of tort of negligence consist in — (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty
has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the law exacts a duty in the given
circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with
unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves
determination of law. Negligence would in such acts and omissions involve an unreasonable risk of harm to
others. The breach of duty causes damage and how much is the damage should be comprehended by the
defendant. Remoteness is relevant and compensation on proof thereof requires consideration. The element
of carelessness in the breach of the duty and those duties towards the plaintiff are important components in
the tort of negligence. Negligence would mean careless conduct in commission or omission of an act
connoting duty, breach and the damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the plaintiff owes. Duty of
care is, therefore, crucial to understand the nature and scope of the tort of negligence.

Enhancement of the compensation awarded in their appeal. The deceased was a businessman with
agricultural income, in addition. There were excellent future prospects for the enhancement of his income.
His family has sustained a serious tragedy consequent on his death. Hence, the compensation which has
been awarded should be enhanced.

CONCLUSION:
The term remoteness of damages refers to the legal test used for deciding which type of loss
caused by the breach of contract may be compensated by an award of damage. It has been distinguished
from the term measure of damages or quantification which refers to the method of assessing in money the
compensation for a particular consequence or loss which has been held to be not too remote.
 REFRENCES:
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2310-remoteness-of-damage-in-the-light-of-tort.html

https://indiankanoon.org

https://blog.ipleaders.in/remoteness-of-damages/?

https://indiankanoon.org/

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2310-remoteness-of-damage-in-the-light-of-tort.html