Remoteness Of Damages in Law of Torts

Introduction In tort, the remoteness of damage principle is used to define the extent to which a defendant may be held liable for a loss arising out of his wrongs. Generally, remoteness answers whether such damage to the person is sufficiently connected to the defendant's conduct to warrant compensation for the loss. The doctrine of remoteness of damages in tort, its underlying principles, historical evolution, and major judicial decisions, are all covered in this article.

Principles on the Remoteness of Damages

The doctrine of remoteness of damages is based on the principle that not every consequence of a wrong is actionable. The law is formulated with the idea of drawing a line beyond which the liability for damages of the defendant is not to extend. This line could be drawn through two major tests:

It is the test of reasonable foreseeability, elaborated on in the leading case of The Wagon Mound [No. 1], which held, in 1961, that a defendant is liable only for that amount of damages of which, if they had happened, could reasonably be considered by him, at the time when the tortious act was committed. If there is a such damage that befalls to plaintiff, which is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct, then hurt is proximate, otherwise too remote.

The Direct Consequence Test: Prior to the reasonable foreseeability test having been established, as lauded by a majority, the direct consequence test dominated, as seen in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd. This test holds that a defendant is liable for all direct consequences of his wrongful act, no matter how unforeseeable. While the test, in large part, has been replaced by an approach of foreseeability, it still remains useful to the understanding of the history related to this doctrine.

Historical Evolution

The doctrine of remoteness of damages has undergone many changes down the years, thereby indicating a shift in the judges' attitudes and legal principles. The courts started with a stringent doctrine of liability, wherein the defendants were held liable for all direct consequences of the acts. This doctrine, as understood in Re Polemis, was nevertheless criticized on account of the potential unfairness of the decisions, as it might impose liability for highly unforeseeable and disproportionate damages.

It was thus the development of the reasonable foreseeability test in The Wagon Mound No. 1 that really developed the tort law. In this case, oil negligently discharged into a harbor caught fire and caused extensive damage. On appeal, the Privy Council ruled that a defendant was only liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable, thus bringing in a much-needed interoperability and fairness into the question of liability determination.

Leading Cases in Law

A number of leading cases have developed the doctrine of remoteness of damages, each in their way contributing to the eventual development and refining of the doctrine as such:

The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] AC 388: It laid down the test for reasonable foresight. A defendant is only liable for those damages that could, as a matter of reasonable foresight, have appeared as a consequence of his wrongful act.

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837: A boy fell into a manhole that was left open by workmen in the street and he was burned when he uploaded a paraffin lamp. The House of Lords held that although the actual sequence of events was not foreseen, the type of harm befalling the claimant, namely burn injuries, was, hence reiterating that the specific manner of occurrence need not be foreseen.

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518: The claimant was injured by an unexpected chemical reaction. It was held that the reaction and the resulting injury not having been foreseeable, the damages were too remote.

Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405: The plaintiff suffered a burn due to the negligence of the defendant, which had subsequently caused the activation of a pre-existing cancerous condition and finally death. The court applied the thin skull rule, that the defendant must take the plaintiff as they find them and liability extends accordingly for the full extent of harm, even if this is exacerbated by a pre-existing condition.

Conclusion

The doctrine of remoteness of damage is an important mechanism within the tort to strike a balance between the interest of fair compensation and the need to limit liability to reasonable and foreseeable consequences. From the direct consequence test to the reasonable foreseeability test, the doctrine has undergone development and changes in reaction to the courts' striving for justice and equity in the assessment of damages. It is through such landmark cases as The Wagon Mound (No. 1), Hughes v Lord Advocate, and Smith v Leech Brain that this doctrine has come to be shaped in a manner able to ensure the scope of liability remains elevated and principled, yet just in tort law.