In actions for torts too remote damages will not be awarded. Discuss this question and give examples.

Question: In actions for torts too remote damages will not be awarded. Discuss this question and give examples.

Find the question and answer of Law of Torts only on Legal Bites. [In actions for torts too remote damages will not be awarded. Discuss this question and give examples.]

Answer

The Principle of the remoteness of damages is an important concept in tort law, which states that a plaintiff can only recover damages that were caused directly by the defendant's wrongful conduct and were not too remote or unforeseeable. In other words, a plaintiff cannot recover damages that are too far removed from the defendant's actions or are too speculative.

The remoteness of damage is a fundamental principle in tort law, which determines whether a plaintiff can recover damages for harm suffered as a result of the defendant's wrongful conduct. The principle of the remoteness of damage seeks to limit the liability of the defendant by ensuring that they are only responsible for damages that were a direct consequence of their wrongful conduct and were foreseeable at the time of the conduct.

There are two tests that courts use to determine whether damages are too remote: the 'reasonable foresight test' and the 'direct consequence test.'

Reasonable Foresight Test: This test is based on the concept of foreseeability, which means that the defendant should be able to anticipate the possibility of harm that could result from their wrongful conduct. The question is whether the type of damage that the plaintiff suffered was foreseeable at the time of the wrongful conduct. In other words, a defendant is not liable for damages that they could not have foreseen. If the damage was foreseeable, the defendant will be held liable for the damages caused.

Direct Consequence Test: This test focuses on the directness of the relationship between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's harm. The question is whether the damage suffered by the plaintiff was a direct consequence of the defendant's wrongful conduct. If the damage was caused directly by the defendant's conduct, the defendant will be held liable for the damages caused, even if the consequences were more severe than they would have been for an ordinary person.

The remoteness of damage principle is important because it limits the scope of the defendant's liability and ensures that they are not held responsible for damages that they could not have foreseen or that were not a direct consequence of their wrongful conduct. This principle also encourages the defendant to take reasonable precautions to avoid causing harm, as they will only be held liable for damages that were foreseeable and a direct consequence of their conduct.

Here are some examples of cases in which damages were considered too remote and relevant case laws:

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. The Miller Steamship Co., [1961] AC 388 or Wagon Mound No. 1 (1961) - In this case, the defendants were the owners of a ship which negligently discharged oil into the water, causing damage to the plaintiff's wharf. The court held that the damage caused by the oil spill was too remote as it was not foreseeable that the oil would ignite and cause the damage. Therefore, the defendants were not liable for the damages caused by the fire.

Hughes v. Lord Advocate, (1963) UKHL 31 - In this case, the defendants left an unattended manhole without any warning signs or barriers. The plaintiff, a child, fell into the manhole and suffered burns from a lamp. The court held that the damage was not too remote, as it was foreseeable that a child might be injured if the manhole was left unattended. The defendants were therefore liable for the damages caused to the plaintiff.

Smith v. Leech Brain & Co. Ltd., [1962] 2 QB 405 - In this case, the plaintiff suffered burns when molten metal splashed onto his face while he was working. The court held that the defendant was liable for the damages caused, even though the burns were exacerbated by a pre-existing medical condition that the plaintiff had. The court held that the defendant was liable for all the damages caused by their wrongful conduct, even if the consequences were more severe than they would have been for a healthy person.

Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd., (1921) 3 KB 560- In this case, the defendants negligently allowed a plank to fall into a ship's hold, causing a spark which ignited petrol fumes and resulted in an explosion. The court held that the defendants were liable for all the damages caused by the explosion, even if they were not foreseeable. This case established the rule of directness of damage, which held that a defendant is liable for all the direct consequences of their wrongful conduct, regardless of whether they were foreseeable or not.

In summary, the principle of remoteness of damage in tort law seeks to determine whether a plaintiff can recover damages for harm suffered as a result of the defendant's wrongful conduct. Courts use the reasonable foresight test and the direct consequence test to determine whether damages are too remote or not. Damages will not be awarded in tort cases if they are too remote or unforeseeable.

Whether damages are too remote or not will depend on the specific facts of the case and the legal principles that apply. If the damages were caused directly by the defendant's wrongful conduct and were not too speculative, the plaintiff may be able to recover damages. By limiting the scope of the defendant's liability, the principle of the remoteness of damage encourages the defendant to take reasonable precautions to avoid causing harm.