Remoteness of Damage

Remoteness of Damage meaning

The Principle of Remoteness of Damage in tort is a concept under the Law of Torts which deals with damages. This principle is used in Civil cases. Damages are paid by either party in a Contract to another party in situations of Breach of Contract or any act committed or omitted that gives way to a civil wrong or civil offence. The concept of Remoteness of Damage in Contract law emphasizes the amount of damages that have to be paid and the severity of of the injury or loss caused by the act.

The legal standard used to determine whether the kind of loss brought on by the breach of contract may be made up for with a damages award is known as the "remoteness of damages in tort." It has been separated from the phrase "measure of damages" or "quantification," which describes the process of determining the monetary value of compensation for a specific outcome or loss that has been deemed to be reasonably close.

What is Remoteness of Damage

The idea that a defendant is only accountable for the harm caused by their acts if that harm was foreseeable at the time of the crime is known as the "remoteness of damage in tort" principle in tort law. If the plaintiff's injuries were unforeseeable or too far away, the defendant is not liable.

This rule ensures that defendants in tort proceedings are not forced to unjust or unreasonable duties. It is founded on the principle that someone should only be held accountable for the consequences of their conduct that were reasonably foreseeable.

This tactic helps protect defendants in tort proceedings from an excessively high or disproportionate burden of proof since it is predicated on the notion that parties should only be held accountable for the outcomes of their conduct that were reasonably foreseeable. It establishes a causal link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm and caps the amount of damages for which the defendant may be held accountable. For this reason, the remoteness of damage in tort is one of the fundamental concepts of tort law.

Remoteness of Damage Example

Illustration: Driving on a road, a man runs into a girl on the sidewalk. The girl falls onto a bicycle and breaks a finger. The man loses balance and runs into a fuel tanker, which tries to save the man. But the tanker turns to the left and plunges into the river, rupturing the fuel tank's lock and releasing oil into the water, killing the truck driver.

In the above case,

• The biker's injury is not directly related to act A; rather, it is caused by the girl falling.

• The immediate harm is the girl getting struck, and A's conduct is what started it.

• Even though they are not directly related to A's activities, the truck driver was injured and material loss (gasoline and tank) occurred as a result of the cyclist's conduct.

• It should be underlined that negligence suggests that the offender is aware of the potentially disastrous effects of driving carelessly.

Kinds of Damage

Under the Law of Torts, damages are the monetary compensation awarded to an injured party for the harm suffered due to a civil wrong. The kinds of damages are classified based on the nature, extent, and purpose of compensation, and they aim to place the injured party, as far as possible, in the position they would have been in had the tort not occurred.

General damages

These are the damages that naturally and necessarily arise from the wrongful act and are presumed by law. They do not require specific proof because they are the direct and immediate consequence of the tort. Examples include pain and suffering, loss of life's amenities, and harm to reputation in cases of defamation. Since these damages cannot be calculated with exact precision, the court assesses them based on judicial discretion and surrounding circumstances.

Special damages

These are damages that arise due to special or peculiar circumstances of the case and must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. These damages are not presumed by law and include quantifiable losses such as medical expenses, loss of income, repair costs, or travel expenses incurred due to the tortious act. If special damages are not specifically claimed and proved, the court will not award them.

Exemplary or punitive damages

These are awarded not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant for egregious, malicious, or oppressive conduct and to deter similar behaviour in the future. These damages are generally awarded in exceptional cases, such as malicious prosecution, oppressive actions by public authorities, or gross violations of individual rights. The amount awarded is usually over and above compensatory damages.

Nominal damages

These are awarded when a legal right of the plaintiff has been violated, but no actual or substantial loss has been suffered. The purpose of awarding nominal damages is to recognise the infringement of a legal right rather than to compensate for any loss. These damages are usually small in amount and serve as a declaration that the plaintiff’s right was violated.

Contemptuous damages

These are awarded when the court recognises that, although a legal right has been infringed, the plaintiff does not deserve substantial compensation due to the trivial nature of the injury or the conduct of the plaintiff. Such damages reflect the court’s disapproval of the plaintiff’s claim and are generally minimal.

Aggravated damages

These are awarded in cases where the injury to the plaintiff is aggravated by the defendant’s conduct, such as cruelty, arrogance, insult, or malicious intent. These damages take into account the mental distress, humiliation, or emotional suffering caused by the manner in which the tort was committed, especially in cases like defamation, false imprisonment, or assault.

The General Principle of Remoteness of Damage

The Hadley v. Baxendale case provides a deeper understanding of the remoteness of the damage in tort principle. In this case, the plaintiff's mill had stopped operating due to a damaged crankshaft, and the case developed the general theory supporting the idea of the remoteness of injury. The defendant failed to supply the manufacturer with the damaged crankshaft, which prevented them from quickly restarting the mill.

The plaintiff sued the company to recover lost wages since the mill took a long time to restart. The court dismissed the claim and upheld the excessive delay in transferring the damaged crankshaft to the third party, which should have resulted in the mills' profits ending.

This case demonstrates that when two parties engage in a contract and one of them breaches it, the other party need to be compensated for damages. These damages should either be judged to have arisen naturally, fairly, and reasonably that is, following the normal course of events from the breach of contract itself, or they should be judged to have arisen when the parties were contemplating the terms of the agreement.

Now, where the specific conditions that led to the actual conclusion of the contract were conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant, making them known to both parties, the damages resulting from such a breach of contract that they would reasonably contemplate would be the amount of injury that would normally result from a breach of the contract, under these special circumstances were wholly unknown to the party breaking the contract, he could, at most, only have had in his contemplation the amount of injury that would generally arise from such a breach of the contract and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any special circumstances.

The objective of Remoteness of Damage

Setting a reasonable and acceptable limit on the defendant's obligation is the aim of the legal notion of the remoteness of damage, particularly in tort and contract law. This argument states that the defendant will not be held liable for all the consequences of their actions, just for losses that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of the unlawful act.

The remoteness of harm hypothesis was created to equitably pay both the party who broke the law and the party who sustained losses. The defendant's culpability for damages is capped at what they might have reasonably anticipated under this strategy. This doctrine protects defendants from being unjustly burdened for actions that were unreasonable and out of the ordinary, which could ultimately lead to unjust compensation.

The Doctrine of Remoteness protects people and entities from irrational repercussions for their conduct and reduces the unfair and foreseeable liability imposed on the defendants, thereby fostering equity and sound decision-making. It makes it clear that there must be a connection between the damages suffered by the party and the activities of the party that broke the contract. This makes a distinction between the direct and indirect effects of an activity.

Test of Remoteness

This test determines if the damage caused by the conduct is large enough for the parties to hold each other liable for the breach or if the damages claimed are too remote. In that case, it can't be considered unduly distant. Both the expected and unavoidable effects of the breach will be taken into account when determining the damage. It has to be shown that knowing means doing more than just acting thoughtlessly and carelessly.

Assuming the position of the party knowing the contract, the defendant's liability is limited to reasonably foreseeable damages or losses that a normally sensible person would have reason to expect as predictable results of a future breach. Damage remoteness is a factual concern, and the law can only provide general guidelines in this regard.

There are two tests conducted to determine the remoteness of the damage caused due to the breach. They are

1. The tests of Reasonable Foresight

2. The test of Directness

1. The Tests of Reasonable Foresight

If a reasonable individual might have predicted the consequences of misbehaviour, then such consequences are not that far off. However, they do not exist if a reasonable man could not have foreseen the effects. Furthermore, one can only be held accountable for occurrences that are fairly foreseeable or very close to them.

In the Re Polemis Case

In this instance, the court of appeals determined that the reasonable anticipation level was appropriate, despite the privy council's eventual endorsement of the directness standard. The facts of the case state that the defendant unloaded cargo on behalf of the ship's charterers. Sparks flew from the carelessly positioned plank into a hold, igniting the fuel and chemicals they were supposed to be releasing.

Sparks caused fires from chemicals and fuel to spread throughout the ship. Ultimately, it was determined that despite their inability to foresee that the ship would be destroyed by the irresponsible dumping of a board, their negligence made them responsible for the fire.

2. Tests of Directness

According to the Tests of Directness, the defendant is liable for the consequences that occurred if he is directly related to the unlawful act. In this test, it is not taken into account whether the defendant could anyway avoid the act occurring or not.

In the case of, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Docks and Engg. Co. Ltd.

This case is also known as the Wagon Mound case, in this case, The Wagon Mound was berthed at a port near Sydney Harbour. Because someone was careless, oil spilt into the ocean, mixed with debris, and floated to another pier where a ship was being repaired with welding. The dock caught fire as a result of the oil igniting the debris. The wharf owner said that he was injured.

This case pushed the foreseeability test back into the public eye for judges, who had previously been less inclined to use it because of the directness test. The Court dismissed the direct rule hypothesis and instead used the reasonable foresight test.

Remoteness of Damage Case laws

In the case of Palghat Coimbatore Transport Co. Ltd. v. Narayanan.

In this case, it was held that The plaintiff does not need to strictly analyse the proximate or immediate cause of the incident to determine whom he can claim when the wrongful act of two parties causes the injury. The plaintiff may file a lawsuit against all or any of the negligent parties, subject to the laws controlling the injury's remoteness. It doesn't matter to him if the parties have an obligation of indemnity or contribution; he can only get paid for the whole amount of his losses. He is entitled to get the full amount of damages from each defendant.

In the case of Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

In this case, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant. Owing to the negligence of fellow employees working for the defendant, an asbestos cover tumbled into a cauldron containing a heated, molten substance. As the plaintiff was near the area where the second explosion erupted he was seriously harmed by the explosion.

The accused was held guilty in this case as the party who breached could not anyway know the consequences of the explosion so the injury caused to the other party was not related directly to the defendants.

Conclusion

The principle of Remoteness of Damages acts as a remedy for the defendants. According to this doctrine if an unlawful act done by a person if it can be foreseen by a reasonable man is the main meaning of Remoteness of Damage. In this doctrine, it is evident to find the relationship between the losses faced by either party to a contract and the party who breached by contract.