School of Law and Legal Affairs

PROJECT ON
Subject – Law of Tort And Term Assignment
Topic - Concept of Remoteness of Damage

Name: Saurabh Submitted To : Mr. Shivam Budholiya

Reg No: NIU-23-8379 Faculty of Law
Batch : 2023-24
Date of Submission : 03\10\2023
Course : B.A LL.B (Hons) – 1 SEM.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I Am Overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge all those who have
helped me to put these ideas well above the level of simplicity and into something
concrete. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Professor Mr. Shivam
Budholiya Sir who gave me this wonderful opportunity to do this splendid assignment
on the topic - Concept of Remoteness of Damage which helped me in doing a lot of
research through which I came to know about various new Facts. Without his guidance,
dedication, sincerity and motivation. I wouldn’t have completed this assignment. Besides,
Sir had left no stones unturned in arranging the classes and giving out the lectures.
Moreover, any attempt at any level can’t be satisfactorily completed without the support
and help of my friends and Family.

Thank you to everyone who helped me in completing this assignment on time.

Concept of Remoteness of Damage
1. Introoduction
2. Definition of Remoteness of Damage
3. Problem of Remoteness of Damage
4. Remote and Proximate Damage
i. Case of Scott v. Shephrd ( The Squib Case )
ii. Case of Haynes v. Harwood
5. Tests of Remoteness
i. Test of Reasonable Foresight
ii. Test of Directness
6. The Test of Reasonable Foresight and Wagmound Case
7. The Test of Directnes And Repolemis Case
8. Other Related Landmark Cases
i. Lynch v. Nurdin
ii. Hughes v. Lord Advocate
iii. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing co. LTD.
iv. S.C.M. (UK) LTD. V.W.J. Whittall & Sons
9. Conclusion
10. Bibliography
1. Introduction
This Assignment Attempts to have an analytical Study on the Problem of
remoteness of damage. Hence, Now we will be discussing in brief the
definition of remoteness of damage, the Problem of remoteness,
differencse between remote and Proximate damage, Two Tests of
remoteness i.e, test of directness and test of reasonable foresight and their
related landmark cases. Looking at the meaning of remoteness of damage
it is the concept of remoteness of damage’ in tort law is Fascinating.
Liabilities must be allocated once damage is created by a wrongful act,
according to the general rule of Law. As several examples have
demonstrated, however allocating liability is not always an easy matter.
The legal standard for determining which type of harm generated by a
breach of contract may be compensated by award of damages is known
as the “remoteness of Damage”. It has been distinguished form the term
“ measure of damages” or “quantification”, which refers to a method of
calculating the monetary compensation for a specific consequence or loss
that has been determined to be not too distant. Therefore, Now let’s
analyse all aspects related to remoteness of damage in detail.

2. Definition of Remoteness of Damage

The definition of remoteness of damage is that, Once a tort (wrongdoing)
is committed, it might have a variety of consequences. The ramifications
of a wrongdoing could be incalculable. No defendant can be held
accountable indefinitely for all of the repercussions of his wrongdoing. He
is only responsible for the repercussion that are directly related to his
actions.

3. Problem of Remoteness of Damage

Once a tort ( Wrongdoing ) is Committed, it might have a bunch of
consequences. And these Consequence could be far – reaching. These
‘consequences of consequences’ can build up into a long chain, and the
issue of the defendant’s liability can arise. “How far can the defendant’s
liability be stretched for the ‘consequences of Consequences’ of the
defendant’s tort? “is the subject addressed in this topic. This whole
concept of ‘consequences of Consequences’ would be perplexing to a
first-time reader. As a result, we can look at a basic example to gain a
better understanding of the situation. The defendant, who was a cyclist,
negligently hits a pedestrian in this simple example. The pedestrian
happened to be carrying a bomb, by the way. And , as a result of the
defendant’s negligence, the pedestrian falls and the bomb explodes,
killing the pedestrian. A nearby structure now catches fire as a result of the
bomb’s blast, killing five people. The building collapses as a result of the
fire, and surrounding structures are damaged, resulting in the deaths of 20
more people. Furthermore, the demolition of neighbouring businesses
causes financial losses to the business owners.
Although one might be tempted to dismiss this scenario as implausible.
It’s easy to imagine that comparable examples like this exact domino
effect could arise, and that their existence could raise legal issues. We can
see form the previous example how a defendant’s negligence might have
unintended and unforeseeable repercussions.
In Such a setting, assigning blame difficult. Would the Court, even if it
were of the opinion that the defendant was to fault for the pedestrian’s
death, also lay the same level of guilt on the defendant for the deaths of
the other 25 people?
Lord Wright in the case of Liesbosch Dredger v. S.S.Edison, explained the
problem to some extent: “The Law cannot take account of everything that
follows a wrongful act; it regard some subsequent matters as outside the
scope of its selection, because it was infinite of the law to judge the cause,
or the consequences of consequences.“ The law must abstract some
outcomes as signification in the complex web of events, possibly not on
the basis of pure logic , but merely for practical reasons”.
4. Remote and proximate damage
Jurists are of the view that a defendant be held liable only for the effect
that were proximate (rather than remote) to the defendant’s wrongful act.
Damage caused by proximate and distant sources
We must set for practical grounds, as lord wright has pointed out.
The question now is: where should this line be drawn?
We use a test known as the ‘test of remoteness’ to answer this question.
this test determines whether the damage is “too remote a consequence”
of the wrongdoing or not.
Illustrations for proximate and remote damage
 A was found accountable to D in this case. Despite the fact that his
behaviour was “the furthest from the injury to D,” it was found to be a
proximate cause of D’s injury. Hazard to the safety of the people on the
street A police officer (the plaintiff in this case) was injured while stopping
the horses and rescuing the ladies and children.
One of the defences stated in a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant was novus actus interveniens (remoteness of consequences).
The court found that novus actus interveniens was not a valid defence in
the case, and that the proximate cause was the defendant’s servants’
careless act of leaving the horse van unattended.
i. Case of Scott v. Shepherd (the squib case)
In this case, a person a tossed a lit squib into a crowd in this case. The squib
landed on a person named B. B tossed that squib even further to avoid injury
to himself. It landed on another person C, Who tossed it even further, till it
detonated on someone D, hurting him. D lost one of his eyes as a result of
the explosion. A was held liable to D. His act was the proximate cause of the
damage, Despite the fact that it was the furthest away from the damage due
to the intervening acts of B and D.
ii. Case of Haynes v. Harwood
In this well – known case, the defendant’s employees abandoned a horse van
on a crowded street due to their irresponsibility. There were women and
children on the street. Some children threw stones at the horses, causing them
to bolt and begin posing a threat and In an attempt to stop them and save the
woman and children on the road, a police officer was hurt. One of the
defendant’s defences was novus actus interveniens, or remoteness of
consequences, which said that the child’s mischief was the proximate cause
and the defendant’s servants’ negligence was the remote cause. Even though
the horses bolted when a youngster threw stones at them , the defendant was
found guilty since such misbehaviour on the part of the children expected.

5. Test of Remoteness

Now that we’ve seen that the law holds a person accountable for
damage that were proximately caused by that person’s act, we might
wonder what criteria the Court uses to determine which act is
proximate and which is remote.
 To resolve this topic, we can look at two different tests of remoteness
that have been used throughout legal history : the test of reasonable
foresight and the test of directness.

i. Test of Reasonable Foresight

If the consequences of a wrongful act might be foreseeable by a

reasonable man, they are not too remote, according to this test.

Pollock was a proponent of the distance test. In the instances of

Rigby v. Hewitt and Greenland v. Chaplin, he opined that the
defendant’s “responsibility is limited for those effect which may
have been foreseen by a reasonable man placed in the
wrongdoer’s circumstances”.
However, it is important to highlight that claiming that the
defendant was unaware of the implications is not a valid defence.
Instead, the Court would have to consider whether the defendant
should have predicted the effect or not, based on reasonableness
standards.
The test of directness has surpassed this test of reasonable
foresight in popularity. However, as we will see later, it was able
to regain favour among jurists.

ii. According to the directness test, a person is accountable for all

direct consequences of his act, whether or not he could have
foreseen them, because the repercussions of a wrongful act not
far away. Furthermore, if the defendant could anticipate any
damage, he will be accountable for all direct consequences of his
wrongful act, according to this test. It’s enough to look at the Re
Polemis Case to get a better understanding of this particular
remoteness test.

6. The Test of Reasonable Foresight And Wagmound Case

The test of directness in the Re Polemis case was later found to be

wrong, and the Privy Council rejected it 40 years later in the case
Overseas Thankship (UK) Ltd. V. Morts Dock and Engg. Co. Ltd., also
known as the facts of the case.
The following are the Wagon Mound Case.
 In the case, The Wagon Mound was a ship that the appellants chartered
(Overseas Tankship Ltd). It was refuelling in a Sydney port just 180
metres away from the respondent’s wharf. Welding works were taking
place on the wharf. A substantial amount of oil was spilled on the sea
due to the appellant’s servants’ negligence, which also reached the
respondent’s wharf. The molten metal ( from the respondent’s wharf )
fell due to the welding operations going on there, igniting the fuel oil
and causing a fire. The respondent’s wharf and equipment were
severely damaged by the fire.
Based on the decision in Re Polemis, the trial court and the Supreme
Court held the appellants accountable for the damages suffered by the
respondents in this case.

However, when the issue reached the Privy Council, it was decided that
Re Polemis could no longer be regarded good law, and the Supreme
Courts’s verdict was overturned. The appellants were found not liable
for the damage caused to the respondent since they could not have
reasonably predicted it. “It does not appear coherent with current
concepts of justice or morality that, for an act of negligence. The actor
should be accountable for all consequences, however unforeseeable,”
Lord Viscound Simonds said in the case. They also stated that “ a man
must be judged to be accountable only for the likely consequences of
his act, according to the standards of civil culpability. “ As a result of
this case, the reasonable foresight test reclaimed its authority to
evaluate the remoteness of damage and, as a result, a person’s liability
for damage caused by him in tort cases.

7. The Test of Directnes And Repolemis Case

This case, known as the Re Polemis Case, was a watershed moment in

the development of the directness test. The applicable criteria,
according to the Court of Appeal, is reasonable foresight, but the Privy
Council eventually affirmed the test of directness. The defendants
chartered a ship to transport cargo, according to the case’s
circumstances. A quantity of Petrol and/or Benzene in tins was
included in the consignment. There was a leak in the tins, and some oil
ended up in the ship’s hold. A plank fell in the hold as a result of the
defendant’s servants’ negligence, and sparks were ignited. The
spacecraft was completely destroyed as a result of those sparks. The
Privy Council ruled that the shipowners were entitled to recover the
damage, despite the fire (and the ship’s subsequent destruction) were
 a direct result of the defendant’s negligence, it didn’t matter if the
defendant could have reasonably foreseen them or not. “ Once an act
is irresponsible, the fact that its specific action was not predicted is
immaterial,” writes Scrutton, L.J.

8. Other Related Landmark Case

i. Lynch v. Nurdin

In some ways, this scenario is identical to the prior one. In this

case, the defendant left his horse-drawn carriage unattended on
a public road. Some children began to play with the horse-drawn
carriage. One child sat in the plaintiff’s cart, while another started
the horse. As a result, the child was harmed, and legal action was
taken.
In this case, the defence of novus actus interveniens was also
used. The plaintiff’s injury, however, was ruled to be a proximate
outcome of the defendant’s act, and so the defendant would be
held liable to the plaintiff.

ii. Hughes v. Lord Advocate

In this case, worker employed by the Post Office left a manhole

in the road unattended. Before they left the site, they covered the
manhole with a tarpaulin entrance and placed several paraffin
lamps around it. The 8 – year – old plaintiff, attracted by the
lamps, was playing around the manhole along with another child
One of the lamps was knocked down causing an explosion in the
manhole. The explosion resulted in damage to the plaintiff.
The Court decided in this case that, while the explosion was not
foreseen by the Post Office’s personnel, the sort of harm (burns)
was. As a result, the defendants were found guilty.

iii. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing co. Ltd.

In this case, The defendant employed the plaintiff in this case.

An asbestos cover dropped into a cauldron of molten hot liquid
due to the negligence of other personnel employed by the
defendant.
The complainant, who was standing close, was hurt as a result of
the explosion.
 The explosion caused harm that the defendant could not have
reasonably expected, and hence the defendant’s negligence was
not a proximate cause of the damage.

iv. S.C.M. (UK) Ltd. v. W.J. Whittall & Sons

In this instance, the Court of Appeals used the reasonable

foreseeability standard. An electric cable was damaged in this
case due to the defendant’s workers’ negligence. The Plaintiff
typewriter manufacturing suffered a long power outage as a
result of this damage. As a result of the power outage, the plaintiff
claimed that he lost productivity and suffered damage to his
factory’s machinery. The defendant were aware that the a
forementioned electric wire supplied electricity to the plaintiff’s
plant, and they might have reasonably expected that any such
power outage would result in severe loss to the plaintiff,
according to the Court in this instance. As a result, the plaintiff
was entitled to compensation.

9. Conclusion

Hence, we can get to the conclusion that remoteness of damages deals

with the consequences of a wrongdoing which are directly linked with
the wrongdoer’s actions. The Consequences of a wrongdoing could be
incalculable. No defendant can be held accountable indefinitely for all
of the repercussions of his wrongdoing. He is only responsible for the
repercussions that are directly related to his actions. The “remoteness
of damages” criteria is used to determine which types of loss caused by
a breach of contract can be compensated by a damages award. It is
distinct form the terms “measure of damages” and “quantification,”
which relate to a method of calculating monetary compensation for a
specific result or loss that has been judged to be not too remote. The
consequences of a wrongdoing could be immeasurable. Further we
discussed about the tests of directness. There are two basic tests that
can be used to evaluate if the damage is minor or severe. They are the
litmus test for realistic foresight and directness. If the effects of a
wrongful act may be foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too far
away, according to the reasonable foresight test. The implication, on
the other hand, are considered remote if they could not be predicted by
a reasonable person. The defendant is solely liable for those
consequences that may have been fairly foreseen. Then we discussed
Repolemis case and Wagmound case in detail. In Re Polemis and
Furness, Withy & co. Ltd., the Court of Appeal rejected the test of
reasonable foresight and decided that the test of directness was more
appropriate. According to the directness test, a person is accountable
for all of the consequences that directly follow his wrongful act, whether
or not he could have foreseen them, because the effects that directly
follow his a wrongful act are not regarded too remote. In the
Wagmound Case, the test of directness in the Re Polemis case was
later found to be wrong, and the Privy Council rejected it 40 years later.
More over we discussed other related landmark cases including Lynch
v. Nurdin, Hughes v. Lord Advocate, as well. Finally, I outline the
implications of this study on research, strategy making, and other book
references.
10. Bibliography

• The Law of Torts including Motor Vehicles Act and Consumer

Protection Act by R.K. Bangia.
• Law of Torts by Dr ASHOK K. JAIN
• https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
• https://www.toppr.com/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in