The concept of the remoteness of damage is the requirement that damage due to the breach of duty should not be excessively distant from the underlying negligent act, i.e., damages resulting from the risk that is a result of the negligent act have to be visible. It will be an act of blatant unfairness if an individual is held responsible for the entire consequences of their actions that, in theory, could be used.

In the case of Oversees Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. [2] (also known as Wagon Mound No. 1.), the defendant’s negligence caused oil to spill out of the Wagon Mound into the harbor of Sydney. The oil traveled to the port of the Plaintiff, where a ship was in the process of welding to repair itself, during which an ounce of molten metal dropped onto the oil, causing it to fire and ruining the wharf. The judge in the trial noted that destruction to the pier caused by the fire was an immediate but inexplicably resulting result. Thus, the defendant was not found to be liable.

The Wagon Mound. The Wagon Mound, The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council expressed its disapproval of the RePolemis (3.3 as well as its refusal to adhere to the decision: “it does not seem consonant with current ideas of justice or morality that for an act of negligence, however slight or venial, which results in some trivial foreseeable damage, the actor should be liable for all consequences however unforeseeable and however grave, so long as they can be said to be direct.”

Foreseeability is a prerequisite for a finding of negligence. A person can’t be held accountable for failure to protect themselves from the unpredicted risk. Foreseeability is essential to answer the question of whether a reasonable person would have taken any measures in any way to protect themselves from the risk and whether the defendant could reasonably be expected to have taken steps.

In the case of Oehler in Oehler v. Davis[4], a manufacturer of a collar for a defective dog collar. The yoke snapped, allowing for the pet to escape from its owner and bite another. The court ruled that the Plaintiff didn’t have the right to bring a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the collar for dogs since the injury was not sufficiently remote.

In Lewis, the case of Lewis. Kehoe [55, the daycare facility did not properly supervise a child’s right to consume poison. Family members who were the primary caregivers of the child lost their custody because the bruises caused by the poisoning were misinterpreted as evidence that they were the result of abuse. The family members filed a lawsuit against the center for daycare, claiming intense mental stress due to the deprivation of friendship with the child. The family’s claim was rejected as too remote.

The case of Hughes v. Lord Advocate In the point of Hughes v. Lord Advocate, the employees of the Post Office opened a maintenance hole and left it unattended during the evening, surrounded by an open shelter made of canvas and surrounded by lamps made of paraffin. The Plaintiff, an eight-year-old boy, brought one of the lamps inside the cave. He was having fun when he fell, and the light was thrown into the maintenance hole. The lamp exploded violently, because of which the claimant himself was thrown into the maintenance hole and suffered severe burns. It was not anticipated it would happen that the light source could explode. However, it was believed that the Post Office men were in breach of duty as they left the maintenance hole open and didn’t think that young children might play with the lamp and suffer burns. Thus, the defendants were held responsible.

The case of Jolley in Jolley. Sutton London Borough [77 Sutton London Borough Council, defendant Sutton London Borough Council recklessly left an abandoned boat on a beach they owned, even though they had put a warning notice on the vessel advising it was not to be handled. While the warning sign stated that the person who owned the boat had a week to either move the ship or be taken away by the Council, The defendant didn’t follow through on the warning notice. Two teenage boys attempted to fix it up by trying to alter its position during many visits. The boat fell onto one boy, inflicting serious injuries that included paraplegia. The defendants were found liable because children frequently found “unexpected ways of doing mischief to themselves and others.” 8.

Foreseeability can be described as a subjective but not an absolute notion. [9] The test for predictability is met in the event that the damage sustained is comparable in nature but different in magnitude, and the exact duration or sequence of the damage cannot be anticipated. However, when the injuries suffered are entirely other, the test for foreseeability cannot be met, and the Plaintiff is unable to get compensation. 

Extent of The Damage

When the damages are foreseeable, the defendant can’t claim that the Plaintiff was earning more than a typical victim or that the product was of exceptional value. Damages cannot be limited to the specific loss of earnings or the average value of the goods under particular circumstances, even though it is assumed that such a figure can be calculated. The range and extent of the damages are outlined in Liesbosch.
(Dredger) v. Edison[11]. The dredger of C’s, Liesbosch, was lost due to carelessness, which was the fault. C’s financial situation prevented them from purchasing a replacement right away. As a result, to fulfill the terms of their contract, they needed to hire a second dredger for the cost of a very high price. In the end, however, the House of Lords refused to pay compensation to the person who claimed because the expense of hiring an additional dredger was substantially greater than the expense of purchasing the D.C. dredger. This additional expense was considered to be due to an unrelated reason – the claimant’s financial situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *