ASSIGNMENT ON

REMOTNESS OF
DAMAGES
BBA LLB (H). SEMESTER-2
BATCH: 2022-27

Submitted By: Bhavika Samtani

Roll No. 2205140043
 • Context & Introduction
• Related Maxim
• Test of Determination
• Case Law Illustrations

OVERVIE
CONTEXT OF
REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES
WHAT? WHY? WHO?

Remoteness of Generally, if a tort is This topic

Damages directs committed, establishes a
how much liability damages are meant connection between
can be fixed and to paid. An event a defendant’s
factors determining constituting a wrong actions and
it. A defendant is act can have a single plaintiff's harm.
only liable for the or multiple Limits the extend to
harm caused by his consequences. which defendant
actions. can be held liable.
MAXIM RELATED TO THIS CONCEPT:
“Novus Actus Interveniens” (new act intervening)

Meaning, The act and the consequences are to be connected

directly and the defendant will not be liable for Novus actus
interveniens and the consequences thereof.

For Example, if a car hits a man walking near a building. The man
happen to carry a bomb in his bag (maybe terrorist?). By the
crash, the building was into ashes and caused injury to people
inside it. Further the flames caused destruction to the next
building. The car owner will give compensation to what extend?

This is where we can relate the maxim to get the answer!

Test to Determine Remoteness of Damages

Judges have used their discretion from time to time,

and in that process, two formulas have been
highlighted:

1. The Test of Reasonable Foresight

2. The Test of Directness
CONTEXT OF
REASONABLE FORESIGHT
Here we shall understand what is Remoteness in Remoteness of
Damages. 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.

Remoteness = Foresee-ability

The foresee-ability test asks whether a prudent man in the defendant’s

position would have foreseen the harm suffered by the plaintiff as a
result of his actions.
WAGON MOUND’s CASE
Overseas Tank ship Ltd V. Motor Docks & Engineering Co. Ltd
INTRO: In this case, a railway company’s servants negligence caused a fire that
damaged a house 200 yards away.

FACTS: Plantiff owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other
ships. The defendant was charted by appellant for carrying oil burning vessel
which leaked and caused huge fire in the wharf. The leaking oil on the water
surface drifted to the site where Motor were welding metal. A spark from
welding and, caught fire and caused significant damage to Mort’s wharf.

CONCLUSION: The court held that Overseas Tank ship Ltd. could not be held
liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf. In this case, the
damage caused to the wharf by the fire and the oil after 60 hours, could not be
foreseen by a reasonable person.
CONTEXT OF
DIRECTNESS
According to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct
consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not;
because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too
remote.

Directness = Direct Liability of wrongful act

ASK THIS QUESTION: If the defendant had not acted negligently, would
the plaintiff have suffered the harm? If the answer is yes, then the
defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of the plaintiff’s harm.
Smith V. London Southwest Railway Co.
INTRO: In this case, a railway company’s servants negligence caused a fire that
damaged a house 200 yards away.

FACTS: The servants were instructed to trim hedges bordering the railway track.
They did so, but left the hedges unattended for 14 days. Spark from passing
engine caused a fire and the flames ultimately burnt a cottage 200 yards away.

CONCLUSION: The railway co. was held liable because the consequence of
leaving the hedges unattended catching a fire in hot weather was a foreseeable
to a prudent man.