Remoteness of Damages – Law of Tort

Remoteness of damage 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.
Remoteness of Damage

The principle of Remoteness of

Damages is relevant to such cases. An
event constituting a wrong can constitute
of single consequence or may constitute
of consequences i.e. series of
acts/wrongs. The damage may be
proximate or might be remote, or too
remote.
1. Scott v. Shepherd:

A’ threw a lighted squib into a crowd, it fell upon ‘X’. In order to

prevent injury to himself, X did the same thing and it fell upon Y. Y in his
turn did the same thing and it then fell on B, as a result of which B lost one
of his eyes.

A was held liable to B. His act was the proximate cause of damage
even though his act was farthest from the damage in so far as the acts X and
Y had intervened in between.
2. Haynes v. Harwood

The defendant’s servants negligently left a house van unattended in a

crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them
bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to
rescuing the woman and children on the road.

One of the defenses pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of

consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the
negligence of the servants was a remote cause.
1. General illustration

A person is going driving on a road, he hits a girl on the footpath, the girl
tumbles on a bicycle breaks her finger, the bicycle man loses his balance and
gets in front of a fuel tanker, the tanker to save the man on the bicycle steers left
but unfortunately hits the railing to a river bridge and falls into it , the lock of the
fuel tank breaks and the oil spills into the river , the driver with the truck drowns.
 Now, the starting point of any rule of the remoteness of damage is the
familiar idea that a line must be drawn somewhere.

 It would be unacceptably harsh for every tort feasor to be responsible for

all the consequences which he has caused.

 Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recover-ability of

consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise
formula.

 Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process,
two formulas have been highlighted:
1. The Test Of Reasonable Foresight

If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a

reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a
reasonable man could not 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.
2. The Test Of Directness

 The traditional approach was that once a breach in the duty of care had
been established, a defendant was liable for all the consequent damage no
matter how unusual or unpredictable that damage might be.

 In Re Polemis while docked, workers employed to unload the ship

negligently dropped a plank into the hold, which struck something, causing a
spark that ignited petrol vapour lying in the hold. The fire destroyed the
whole ship
 The Lords held that although the fire was not a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the plank falling, there had been a breach of the duty of care
and all damage representing a direct consequence of the negligent act was
recoverable.

 It was determined that once some harm was foreseeable, the defendant
would be liable for the full extent of the harm. That particular consequences
are possible does not make them reasonably foreseeable.

 This will particularly be the case when there are a significant number of links
constituting the chain. The more links, the less likely that consequence may
be considered reasonably foreseeable.
 Foreseeability

 However, in The Wagon Mound (No 1)[2] a large quantity of oil was spilt
into Sydney Harbour from the Wagon Mound and it drifted under the
wharf where the claimants were oxyacetylene welding.

 The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the wharf and to vessels
moored nearby. The Privy Council replaced the direct consequence test
with the requirement that, in order to be recoverable, damage must be
foreseeable in all the circumstances, thus, although pollution was a
foreseeable consequence of the spillage, an outbreak of fire was not.
THANK YOU