Remoteness of Damages

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.
A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more
clear.
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.
3. 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.
In the above case:
o the girl being hit is the direct damage and it is the
direct damage caused by the act of A
o the damage caused to the cyclist is proximately
caused by the falling of the girl and is remote to the
act of A
o the damage caused to the truck driver and the loss of
material(fuel and fuel tank) is remote to the act of A
and proximate to the act of the cyclist. And it is to be
noted that the accountability to negligence is made
on the assumption that the person is aware of the
fact that rash driving can lead to fatalities. (though
the expected and the actual results might not be the
same).
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 directness
2. The test of reasonable foresight
1.The Test 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.
Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co.
1921
Brief Facts: This case is the leading case-law on the Test
of Directness. "Polemis" was a ship's name and the plaintiff
was its owner. The defendants charted Polemis from the
plaintiff to transport benzine or petrol. The defendants
loaded Polemis with petrol cans. During the voyage, some
of the petrol cans were leaked, and petrol vapour was
formed in the hold. The ship reached a port, where the
stevedores were employed by the defendants. One of the
stevedores negligently knocked a plank of a temporary
stage. As a result of it, the plank was slipped and fell
speedily in the hold. It stroke something in the hold
causing a spark which ignited the petrol vapour. Thus the
vessel completely was destroyed in fire. The plaintiff sued
the defendants for compensation.
Judgement: The House of Lords held that the defendants
were liable, and ordered them to pay 200,000 pounds to
the plaintiff.
Principle: Once the tortious act is established, the
defendant is to be held liable for all the damage which is in
fact directly traceable to the negligent act, and not due to
independent causes having no connection with the
negligent act. The defendant's liability extent to all the
damage directly traceable to the negligent act.
2.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.
Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock &
Engineering Co. (1961) (Wagon Mound No.1 Case)
Brief Facts: Wagon Mound was a ship's name. It was
under the control of the defendants. The Wagon Mound
was stopped in Sydney harbour, and at adistance of 600
feet Morts Dock & Engg. Co's wharf was situated. Due to
the negligent acts of the workers of the defendant, oil from
Wagon Mound was leaked and a layer of oil was formed on
the sea water. The layer of the oil gradually spread to the
edge of the waters. At the edge, there was plaintiff's wharf,
in which a ship of another company i.e. the Miller
Steamship Co. Ltd. was being repaired. In the course of
repairs, a drop of molten metal fell on the floating oil which
leaked from Wagon Mound, and resulted in big fire, and
thus damaging the plaintiff's entire wharf, and also the
ship of the Miller Steamship Co. Ltd. The plaintiff sued the
defendants for compensation. The result of this case later
known as Wagon Mound No.1 case.
Judgment: The trial Court applied the Test of Directness
and held that the defendants (Overseas Tank Ltd) liable.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wales also affirmed the
decision of the trial Court basing upon Polemis case(The
test of Directness). On appeal, the Privy Council reversed
the decision of the lower Courts, and rejected the
application of Re Polemis rule in this case. The Privy
Council held that the defendants could not foresee the
consequences of leaking the oil, which an ordinary man
could foresee. Therefore, the defendants were not liable to
pay compensation to the plaintiff.
Principle: The Privy Council obsereved: "After the event
even a fool is wise. But it is not hind sight of a fool; it is the
foresight of a reasonable man which alone can determine
responsibility. The Polemis Rule by substituting direct
reasonably foresseeable consequence leads to a conclusion
equally illogical and unjust. The Rule in Polemis case was
longer be regarded as good law."
Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd. v. The Miller Steamship
Co. Ltd. (1967) (Wagon Mound No.2 Case)
Brief Facts: The owner of the ship (which was burnt in the
fire accident as explained in the brief facts of Wagon
Mound No.1 case) was the Miller Steamship Co. Ltd., and
the plaintiff in this Wagon Mound No.2 case. The plaintiff
sued the same defendants i.e. Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd.
for the compensation.
Judgment: The Privy Council held the defendants were
liable, and ordered them to pay compensation to the
plaintiff.
Principle: The Privy Council observed: "If a real risk is one
which would occur to the mind of a reasonable man and
which would be not brush aside as far fetched, and if the
criterion is to be what that reasonable man would have
done in the circumstances, then surely he would not
neglect such a risk if action to eliminate it presented no
difficulty, involved no disadvantage and required no
expense. The damage by fore can be foreseeable: (i) There
was a real risk of fire although remote; (ii) The risk was
great in the sense that if the oil caught fire serious damage
to ships and property was very likely; (iii) Risk; (iv) Action
to eliminate the risk presented no difficulty, disadvantage
or risk; (v) From the very beginning the discharge of oil was
an offence and was causing loss to the defendant
financially; and (vi) A reasonable man in the position of a
Chief Engineer would have realized and foreseen and
prevented the risk". This case also affirms and explains the
Test of Forseeability.
Question on Remoteness of Damage
State whether True or False
Ques 1. If the consequences of a wrongful act could be
foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too
remote.
Ans. True

Remoteness of Damages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remoteness of Damages

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remoteness of Damages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remoteness of Damages – Law of

1.The Test Of Directness

2.The Test Of Reasonable Foresight

You might also like