i am sure you heard of butterfly effect. did u know that it has a role to play in the tort law. The concept of remoteness of damages talks about the effect of one act on another person’s rights even if the person is nowhere related to the tortfeasor or his acts.

DOCTRINE OF NATURAL OR PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE

The doctrine remoteness of damage is also called doctrine of natural or doctrine probable consequence. It proved that a plaintiff is not to be entitled to get damages if the damage sustained by him is too remote a consequence of the defendant’s conduct. The chain of causation between the defendant’s act and the plaintiff’s injury must not be too indirect for no man is liable in law “ad infinitum” for the consequences of his act.

For example, the plaintiff’s dredger was negligently damaged and was sunk by the defendant.

At that time the plaintiff was into a contract and he needed the dredger to discharge his labilities as a part of his contract. The damage of the dredger effected the plaintiff indirectly.

It was held that the plaintiff cannot claim for damages for additional contract hire expenses because the defendant could not have foreseen the loss caused to the plaintiff.[1]

TESTS OF REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE

The problem of remote and proximate damages can be solved using the following tests: –

1. The test of reasonable foresight

According to this test, the consequences of an act can be foreseen be a reasonable man, then they are not too remote and the plaintiff can claim relief under those circumstances.

This test was upheld in Pollock C. B in Rigby v. Hewit[2] and Greenland v. Chaplin[3].the

• The Test of directness

According to the test of directness, a person will only be liable for the direct consequences of his act, whether he could foresee them or not, because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote to the act.

            The test of reasonable foresight was rejected and the test of directness was upheld to be more appropriate. In the case of Smith v. London and south Western Company[4], It was held that the railway company had breached their duty and were negligent and in allowing the heap of trimmings of grass near a railway line during such weather conditions. Therefore, the damages are not too remote.

PRINCIPLES AND RULES INVOLVED IN CONSIDERING THE OUESTION OF REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE.

Lord Rodger developed these principles of remoteness of damages. He summarised it into 5 main principles as explained below: –

1. The respondent will not be held liable for consequences that he/ she cannot foresee as the consequences of the act.
2. The circumstances will decide weather the respondent is liable or not and it may not be the same for all cases.
3. Considering the second principle, if the injury to the plaintiff is foreseeable, the respondent will be liable, even if the damage to a greater extent was foreseeable or it could not have been foreseen.
4. The respondent must take his victim if he finds him.
5. Where the personal injury to the pursuer is reasonably foreseeable by the tortfeasor, he will be held liable for personal injury. The injury suffered by the pursuer as a result of wrongdoing may be physical or psychiatric.    

 RULES RELATING TO REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE

• Egg-shell skull Rule

This rule is an exception to the rule in Wagon Mount. This rule proves that “to the effect that the amount of damage need not be foreseen at least so far as the physical condition of the victim is concerned, abnormal existing at the time of wrongful act do not negative casual connection.”

 This rule is called the egg shell rule because egg shell is fragile and it should be moved from one place to with care and similarly the defendant cannot cause any harm to a person who is week.

• Novus Actus rule

This rule talks about human intervention between the wrongful act and its consequences. This rule says that if there is an intervention of a third party

And the plaintiff sufferers a loss due to this, then the defendant will not be held liable for the damage caused. A consequence will be considered too remote if the chain of causation between the wrongful act and plaintiff’s damage is broken by an intervention of a new act by the third party.

---

[2] (1850) 5 Ex.240.

[3] (1850) 5 Ex. 243.

[4] (1870) L R 6 C.P 14.