In this article you will learn about the Remoteness of Damage in Tort.
Introduction
The Doctrine of Remoteness of Damage refers to situations where damage occurs after a certain period following the cause of action, making the damage "remote." Courts only consider natural and proximate damage when assessing liability. The key question is whether the damage suffered by the plaintiff is remote or not. In legal terms, the principle "In jure non remota causa sed proxima spectator" applies, which means that only proximate causes (i.e. damage) should be considered, not the remote ones. The direct effect of a wrongful act committed by the defendant is what must be compensated. Remote damage, however, is not compensable. Although wrongful acts may have many effects, only the direct and immediate consequences are considered in legal proceedings. It is the direct effect of the wrongful act by the act of the defendant. Remote damages are not compensated.
A wrongful act has many effects: whether the court considers all the effects?
No, only proximate damage. Ad infinitum - It will proceed to infinity.
Aim: to mediate the litigation.
Before 1850, courts presumed certain dimensions in which damage suffered by the plaintiff was always presumed to be remote. If the damage caused by the defendant was not due to the negligent act of the defendant, in this circumstance, the court presumed that the damage is remote, and the defendant is not bound for compensation.
In Scott v. Shepherd, Mr. A threw a lighted squib into a crowd which fell on X. He threw it further which fell on Y who threw it away. It fell on Scot, exploded and blinded one eye. Here, Mr. A was held liable. Though X and Y had intervened, Mr. A's act was the real or main cause. The court stated that only the initiator of the wrongful act will be held liable.
In Haynes v. Harwood, the unattended horse van of Mr. X started running as some boys were throwing stones at the horse. The policeman was injured while attempting to stop the horse. Mr. X was held liable. The Court held that the plaintiff's damage was primarily caused by the defendant's servants' negligent act of leaving the horse van unattended which was not a valid defence.
Tests to find out the direct damage.
- The test of reasonable foresight.
- The test of directness.
The Test Of Reasonable Foresight
If the consequences of a wrongful act could be anticipated or foreseen by a reasonable man or prudent man, the defendant will be held liable. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have anticipated or foreseen the consequences, then they will not be held liable. And, an individual will be held liable only for the consequences that are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.
The Test Of Directness
According to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences or damages of his wrongful act, whether he could anticipate or foresee them or not. this is because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.
This article on Remoteness of Damage in Tort is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. Explore more articles and resources on LawStudyPoint.com. Also, check out the Dipshikha Anand YouTube channel for helpful videos and updates.