The principle of Remoteness of Damages has relevancy to such cases. An incident constituting a wrong can constitute of single consequence or may constitute of consequences i.e. series of wrong acts. The damage can be proximate or can be remote, or too remote. As an example someone while driving on a road, hits a girl on the footpath, the girl tumbles on a bicycle breaks her finger, the bicycle man loses his balance and gets ahead of a fuel tanker, the tanker to avoid an accident the person 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 therefore the oil spills into the river, the driver with the truck drowns. In this case the girl being hit is that the direct damage and it's the direct damage caused by the act of the one who was driving on road. The damage caused to the cyclist is proximately caused by the falling of the girl and is remote to the act of the person, driving on road. The damage caused to the trucker and also the loss of fuel and tank is remote to the act of the person, driving and proximate to the act of the cyclist and it's to be noted that the accountability to negligence is created on the belief that the person is alert to the very fact that rash driving can cause fatalities. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in this process, two formulas are highlighted:
The Test Of Reasonable Foresight: If the consequences of a wrongful act may be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they're not too remote. If on the opposite hand, a reasonable man couldn't have foreseen the results, then they're too remote. And, an individual shall be liable just for the implications which don't seem to be too remote i.e. which can be foreseen.
The Test Of Directness: per the test of directness, an individual is accountable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act aren't too remote.
Case laws
Scott v. Shepherd (1773)
This case also is known as Squib case. The defendant threw a squib, which was a small, lit firework, into a busy marketplace with plenty of people and stalls. So as to shield themselves and avoid damage, the squib was thrown on by two people. When it landed close to the complainant,
it exploded and caused injury to his face. He later lost 1 of his eyes. The first thrower, the defendant, was charged with assault and trespass. The court dismissed the appeal. The injury to the complainant was the direct and unlawful act of the defendant who threw the squib. The other people threw on the squib for his or her own safety and this was justifiable. The throwing on was classed as a continuation of the defendant’s action, which was intended. Whatever followed this was a part of the defendant’s initial act.
Haynes v. Harwood (1935)
The defendant’s servants negligently left a house van unattended in an exceedingly crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a toddler, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an endeavour to prevent them with a view to rescuing the girl and kids on the road. one in all the defences pleaded by the defendant was the remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the kid was the proximate cause and therefore the negligence of the servants was an overseas cause.
Conclusion
The term remoteness of damages refers to the legal test used for deciding which kind of loss caused by the breach of contract is also compensated by a present of damages. it's been distinguished from the term measure of damages or quantification which refers to the strategy of assessing in money the compensation for a selected consequence or loss which has been held to be not too remote.
No comments:
Post a Comment