Case Laws relared to Remoteness of Damage for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the following passage and answer the given question.

The 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. The principle of the Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute of single consequence or may constitute of consequence i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote.

In law, the damage must be direct and the natural result of the consequence of the act of the defendant. Otherwise, the plaintiff will not succeed. This is In jure non-remota causas ed proxima spectatur (In law the immediate, not the remote cause of any event that is to be considered). The reason for this is that the defendant is presumed to have intended the natural consequences, but not the remote damage. It means then that the defendant's act must be the Causa Causans or the proximate (near) cause.

Novus actus interveniens: (new act intervening): The act and the consequences are to be connected directly and the defendant will not be liable for Novus actus interveniens and the consequences thereof.

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.

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.

 The test of reasonable foresight means that the liability of the defendant extends only to those consequences, which could have been foreseen by a reasonable man. This theory was rejected in 1921, and the second theory was applied in re Polemis and Furnace Ltd case. In this case, D chartered P's vessel to carry cargo which included petrol. Some cases were leaking and there were vapors of petrol. D's servants while shifting cargo negligently knocked at a plank which fell rubbing the wood and got ignited. As a result, the entire vessel caught fire and was destroyed. Held, D was liable. It was due to the negligence of D's servants that the fire had broken out and hence D was liable for all the consequences, even though those could not reasonably have been anticipated.

Question:

M’s ship was carrying fuel from Russia at Kandla Port, due to the negligence of M’s staff a huge amount of oil spilled into the sea.

Y is the owner of the shipyard, 200 KM far from the Kandla Port. Due to the high tides in the sea, oil spillage reached near the shipyard too, it catches fire due to welding work that was going on there. Y sues M for the damages. Decide.

Read the following passage and answer the given question.

The 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. The principle of the Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute of single consequence or may constitute of consequence i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote.

In law, the damage must be direct and the natural result of the consequence of the act of the defendant. Otherwise, the plaintiff will not succeed. This is In jure non-remota causas ed proxima spectatur (In law the immediate, not the remote cause of any event that is to be considered). The reason for this is that the defendant is presumed to have intended the natural consequences, but not the remote damage. It means then that the defendant's act must be the Causa Causans or the proximate (near) cause.

Novus actus interveniens: (new act intervening): The act and the consequences are to be connected directly and the defendant will not be liable for Novus actus interveniens and the consequences thereof.

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.

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.

The test of reasonable foresight means that the liability of the defendant extends only to those consequences, which could have been foreseen by a reasonable man. This theory was rejected in 1921, and the second theory was applied in re Polemis and Furnace Ltd case. In this case, D chartered P's vessel to carry cargo which included petrol. Some cases were leaking and there were vapors of petrol. D's servants while shifting cargo negligently knocked at a plank which fell rubbing the wood and got ignited. As a result, the entire vessel caught fire and was destroyed. Held, D was liable. It was due to the negligence of D's servants that the fire had broken out and hence D was liable for all the consequences, even though those could not reasonably have been anticipated.

Question:

J a bus driver was picking up children from the school, just nearby the school, another bus was coming behind the bus and a lorry of one K was coming from another side. When two buses have been passed. One child ran to cross the road and got hit by K’s lorry. Decide.

The test of reasonable foresight in determining the remoteness of damages was first applied in which of the following case?